Who is inhumane? A discussion regarding dolphin fishing in Taiji

Anyone seeing the Oscar-winning documentary The Cove (2009) or various images of dolphin fishing in the Japanese town of Taiji must have felt a natural cringe. Taiji fishermen drive beautiful dolphins into a cove and heartlessly kill those mammals. Due to the large amount of shed blood, the color of the blue ocean turns into dark red. This image alone can make any of us who have grown up watching Flipper, or even the more recent Dolphin Tale (2011), an immediate empathizer of Ambassador Caroline Kennedy’s comment of the “inhumane” practice of the Taiji dolphin fishing. Or would it?

The emotional outcome of gruesome images is always strong, perhaps too strong. It sometimes sways our rational sense and moves us to do many inappropriate things. Regarding this issue of the ongoing dolphin cull, we have seen some obscene and violent comments against the Japanese people as a whole. Some have initially voiced their former love for the nation, but expressed their current hatred because of the continued “inhumane” practices of killing “intelligent creatures.” Others have simply expressed their antipathy toward Japan with vitriolic words. Even though a natural reaction from the above-mentioned gruesome images might rightly be that of anger and disappointment, we as sensible beings ought not to be moved immediately to hateful actions or words. Let us then take a bit of time to put things into perspective and reason together regarding the issue of Taiji’s dolphin hunts.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe just on January 24 voiced his support for the dolphin fishing in Taiji. He expressed that the practice in Taiji is a historical tradition, so no one has a right to infringe on others’ culture and traditional practices. Personally, I don’t think PM Abe’s words reach those who are concerned with the inhumane practice of dolphin fishing. By simply saying a certain practice is traditional, its right and legitimacy cannot be established in this global age.

Before fiercely condemning the practice of dolphin fishing, it ought to be asked why the people in the town of Taiji continue to do this in spite of all-around oppositions. The reason is not that difficult to understand. They are fishing dolphins not because they are miserably wretched people who gain pleasure out of killing highly intelligent creatures, but because they simply need to sustain their life. The town of Taiji is a very old place, once prosperous with whaling, which goes back as far as the late seventeenth century. The town thrived until the wide-scale ban of whaling by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). Since 1988, the town stopped fishing for most whales, except for the ones allowed by the international regulation. In order to supplement the income, the town started to fish dolphins in 1969.

According to a report made in 2010, only 200 people actually serve at the fishery in Taiji. They do fish other species, but if they cannot fish for dolphins or whales allowed by the international regulation, their income would only be around 2,000,000 yen (about 20,000 USD). It definitely is not enough to sustain, not to mention prosper. Some have argued that the government should compensate the income of the Taiji fishermen if they stop hunting dolphins. This argument is simply oblivious to the moral and psychological effect of permanently depending on governmental support.

The reality is that Japan, by large, is not economically dependent on dolphin fishing any more than Norway, Denmark, or Solomon Islands, which continue the practice even today. It is only a fraction of Japanese people who fish dolphins. Furthermore, the only reason for dolphin fishing as we have seen is that they needed it financially. Otherwise, they cannot sustain themselves. So I must ask, does any one of us have a right to prohibit dolphin fishing, which is banned neither by international or domestic regulations, so that the fishermen in Taiji should bear near-poverty and an insecure lifestyle?

Am I saying that fishing for dolphins has no moral consequence? Of course it has! I would even go as far as to say that human existence as a whole is filled with innumerable moral consequences. Japanese people are particularly aware of human sinfulness regarding consuming other creatures, perhaps due to its animistic and Buddhistic background. Because of this, many Japanese still have not forgotten to thank nature and the creatures that sustain our daily lives. Human beings, so long as they live on this earth, will continue to consume other lives, whether they are plants, fish, birds, mammals, or even dolphins. If anything is inhumane, our human life is paradoxically inhumane. It is therefore important to realize that our existence depends on other creatures’ lives, so we must all be thankful for the loss. But if the human life and its basic rights (which include freedom and prosperity) are threatened because of our love for other creatures, I must say that the order of morality is deeply confused. We should not hinder anyone’s rights for sustenance and to lead prosperous lives.

Again, it is important to remember dolphin hunting is not widespread in Japan, nor does the government actively inculcate it. It is also important to remember that the fishing in Taiji does not destroy the environment by accelerating the extinction of any specie. The very reason for their commitment to dolphin fishing is to add to their already rather modest income. As we deeply think about these aspects of dolphin fishing in Taiji, let us reason calmly and sensibly.

Comment Policy : Our comments section is open and welcome to anyone who wishes to participate in discussion or share their point of view, regardless of what it may be. In order to limit spam and those who wish to impede meaningful conversation, we are now requiring users to log in with an account or verify their email address. However, the following behavior will result in your comment being deleted or, if continued, permanent removal from conversations: posting under multiple names, making hateful/racist comments, or making no valuable contribution by posting the same thing repeatedly.

Lauren Bernhardt-Rhone

If the Taiji community wanted to they could find other ways to become/stay food independent. It is being done around the world. The issue is that they are too prideful and angry to even entertain other possibilities.

Mike O’Brien

If I buy into your claim, then I guess the actions of the SSCS and other similar groups are just going to make them even angrier and make any solution even harder. So either your claim is wrong or the self=proclaimed anti-dolphin hunting groups really don’t want to end the hunt.

JimLight

Society is changed by those who care enough about an issue or situation to do something about it. I applaud those who take action to make the world a better place.

Simon_V

“the SSCS and other similar groups are just going to make them even angrier and make any solution even harder”

This is the view point of the more serious of Japanese activists, such as ELSA, IKANET, etc.
And I agree. Few people are persuaded by abuse. They may give in to force, but will revery given the first opportunity.
We need to find a solution that suits them. The most convincing scenario I see is ending the demand for live dolphins by ending cetacean captivity and animal circuses in general. Many civilised countries have realised this already, but there are those who put profits first.

cewing2301

we are going to end these hunts, so just wait. it IS going to happen

lasolitaria

“they could find other ways to become/stay food independent”.

Well, could they? How can you possibly know?

justaguy

Since there is nothing particularly unique about Taiji compared to the thousands of other small towns in Japan which don’t kill dolphins, I would say yes, they can.

lasolitaria

So, you not only know Taiji enough as to claim they could, but you also know every one of those thousands of small towns in Japan profoundly enough to deem yourself able to so easily compare them all and reach the conclusion that there’s nothing particularly unique to Taiji. Oh, the boundless arrogance…

Maybe, just maybe, the fact that they have first hand knowledge of the issue means they’re in a little bit better position to be aware of a reason why they won’t stop hunting dolphins that some guy who doesn’t, such as you, isn’t aware of. Maybe, just maybe, they hesitate to believe the good anonymous people from the internets has come up with a better way.

JimLight

I think you insult the people of Taiji. Certainly they are not so dumb that the majority of them can only fish for dolphins. They just don’t have the will because they don’t view their drive kills as inhumane.

This obsession of the Japanese government to post ludicrous statements in a feeble attempt to justify a few who take whales and dolphins so cruelly is an embarrassment to the people of this great nation. Certainly a little critical introspection would reveal the weaknesses in their arguments that are so obvious to those outside. I am reminded of the parable, the Emprer has no clothes.

Bruce H. Crocker

I agree with the bulk of your comment. One thing though…dolphin are not fish so one cannot “fish for dolphins”….just a minor point, but very important I think, because so long as people view the dolphin as a fish and not a highly intelligent sentient ocean mammal with highly structured family and social needs no different from our own, some will continue to pooh-pooh both the method of killing and their capture and sale into a life of slavery!!

Calli

since dolphin meat is labeled as whale meat, nobody really wants to eat it due to high mercury levels, lots of it goes toward pet food and fertilizer….it’s slaughter under false pretense…it’s really about dolphin trafficking….to sell them to marine parks in Asia…supply and demand, greed!

Calli

Agree, and why do they need to label dolphin meat as whale meat, if it is so tasty and healthy??

JimLight

They can get more money per pound as whale meat. Of those few who eat whale and dolphin meat, more prefer whale meat to dolphin.

Calli

They label this meat as whale, so why catch a dolphin if it is so poisoned with mercury causing male breast enlargement due to the estrogenic effect of heavy metals. Nobody even wants it as much, importing it into other countries is prohibited. The slaughter is just a pretense so they can capture hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of live performing circus animals.

Bongo the Prdkha

It is nice to have more opinions on this issue. If you think about it, things like these happen all the time to many different species yet not many make such fuss about them but in this case it’s different for some reason. As for earlier comment, most insults and hate actually come from people attacking fishermen, and accusing other people of cruelty and hatred. People who don’t obtain the food but people who are served the food. Some of them are too far away from nature [which is paradox, because some of them claim to be so called nature lovers], to realize where does all the food they eat come from. You may say – but they are dolphins – ok I understand that but how is this dolphin hunt more brutal than for example tuna hunt where hundreds of unfortunate tunas are slaughtered and there is blood too, much blood. Then you may say – but I’m vegetarian, I don’t kill inocent animals – plants have feeling receptors too… go eat rocks. Now one would say that perhaps these fishermen might be killing too many at once but then again, how often do they do so ? Eat me!

JimLight

It is my understanding the it is only about 50 fisherman in Taiji who participate in the kills and butchering. Certainly with some thought or creativity these 50 could be refocused. There are numerous communities that have repurposed their workforce to account for economic and regulatory changes that made historical businesses and jobs uneconomical or obsolete. The economic reality in these cases is adapt or die – a kind of survival of the fittest. Dolphin and whale watching is a booming business in many US ports. The town is in such a beautiful setting, it would seem ecotourism could be a great draw. I am quite certain with a little thought, a path to a new enterprise could be realized. With the handwriting on the wall, the Taiji fishermen would be prudent to start the transition to a new way of making money.

As to the the author’s comment on the sensitivity of the Japanese people thanking nature for the sacrifice, the video evidence seems to show the cetacean fishermen of Taiji have strayed from that mindfulness. One can hear them laughing and cheering when they capture or kill a dolphin. Some taunt those appalled by the brutality and cruelty. I certainly don’t sense any respect for the animals they kill and capture from their actions. And certainly they could be more humane by letting the young, the pregnant and the mother/offspring pairs go. Netting 250 dolphin up for four days with no food is hardly a humane practice. So I am not buying the implication that the Taiji dolphin fishermen have any respect for the creatures they indiscriminately torture, kill and capture in large numbers.

Killing whole pods is not good for the breeding stock diversity in a species with such low birthrates and long weening periods.. It is not a sound management practice.

If there were political will, the problem of the Taiji fishermen should be relatively easy to solve. I don’t see the political will as evidenced by the comments of the Prime Minister. It is a shame to let needless cruelty mar the image of a great nation.

Mike O’Brien

“There are numerous communities that have repurposed their workforce to account for economic and regulatory changes that made historical businesses and jobs uneconomical or obsolete.”

There are also numerous communities that have withered away when an local industry was shut down.

JimLight

Fisherman in Taiji go after more than cetaceans. I am sure the brilliant, hardworking people of Japan could define and implement an alternative.

Mike O’Brien

So in other words you have no idea what or if jobs could be found and
despite saying they should change you aren’t willing to figure out how
that could be accomplished.

If they already go after
more than cetaceans yet also go after cetaceans then logically they do
so because either the other fishing won’t support them or the other
fishing is saturated and won’t be able to make up for the loss of income
from cetaceans.

JimLight

No I have plenty of ideas, but as you well know have no power to implement them. I am confident that advanced countries like Japan will abandon this brutal practice. It is an embarrassment to their great nation. The Taiji dolphin fishermen would be wise to be proactive….economic darwinism – evolve to meet market pressures or lose your livelihood.

Mike O’Brien

No one has asked you to implement anything. You are being asked to put forward actual real workable solutions.

JimLight

Already mentioned three. Figuring out a way to make just 50 fisherman productive is no reason to continue this barbaric practice.

lasolitaria

What “market pressures”? It’s obvious that anti-dolphin fishing activists are by definition not the market of dolphin fishermen. Since the business is still running, it’s also obvious that the fishermen are pleasing their actual market i.e. people who like dolphin meat, so their conduct is sound by economic standards. I also doubt Taiji fishermen are much affected by or concerned about the waves of disgust from a segment of people in the West.

JimLight

The decline in Japanese dolphin meat demand, the decline in demand for captive Cetaceans due to regulatory changes in the industry over time, and the decline in dolphinarium park attendance over time as people become enlightened. Each of these will have their own timeline, but they are bound to occur. The work of activists to educate the public accelerates those timelines as the message is simple, intuitive, and hard to refute.

lasolitaria

So you expect people to act according to what has not happened just because you believe it will? Talk about complete disregard for reality…

Way to rally the support of the unenlightened non-prophets i.e. people who don’t think like you.

“simple, intuitive and hard to refute”. The message is neither of those.

JimLight

All are happening now. The decline in demand for dolphin meat in Japan is well documented. Now four countries have shut down dolphinaria and more have enacted laws restricting capture and import.

I believe most reasonable people when exposed to The Cove and Blackfish will look at the issue in a new light. I went to SeaWorld years ago. But then as I matured and considered the conditions those poor animals are kept in, i did a little research and determined my gut feel was correct. Why do you think SeaWorld will not agree to a public debate?

JimLight

Yes actually – better to be proactive than wait until you are forced to change. Regulatory change is spreading. Four nations have ended dolphin captivity in their countries and more have enacted laws prohibiting killing, capturing and/or importing cetaceans. Demand for whale meat has already plummeted in Japan. The handwriting is on the wall.

Janna Harttgen

Sweet! So you think they’ll stop going after cataceans as soon as they earn enough money with the other fishing – or what?

Simon_V

Once the trade in live dolphins is ended, they will have no choice. See my reply above.

Simon_V

Please don’t lose focus on the fact that it is LIVE dolphins that make the hunt profitable, not the meat.
Last year it was calculated that their income would drop by a third without the live catch. That doesn’t mean that two thirds comes from the meat sales. Their total income includes that from other kind of fishing (or alternative employment) during the “off-season” March to August.

Whale-watching has been proposed as an alternative occupation, but the experience of other dolphin-watching and swim-with-WILD-dolphins tour operators in Tokyo, Chiba, Shizuoka, Shikoku, Kyushu and Okinawa, shows that though your average fisherman may be an expert boat operator and be aware of how to find dolphins, he may not have the skills required to run a business where you need to be able to handle tourist customers, and discuss with them the ecology, (& anatomy, biology, sociology etc.) of dolphins and their environment. Extra staff will be required, but many fishermen see themselves as the almighty power in charge of their boat and may be unwilling to delegate.
This is not a new topic for some of us, so please excuse me for cutting out the full explanation.

Bruce H. Crocker

I think, with all due respect, that to compare a tuna and a dolphin borders on being irrational. If one takes that path, then all life has equal value and I will need to obtain gentle floating air generators with which to walk about this Earth for fear of all of the insects that I otherwise must be stepping on! I don’t say this lightly for, I do have a respect for all life….a respect…not a passionate love that would drive me down the path to madness at my inability to rationalize the taking of any life form!! But just as I am unwilling to take the life of another human, I am unwilling to take the life of certain animals. And I must admit….I AM guilty of placing them on a ladder, the higher up on which they are, the greater my unwillingness to kill them. The dolphin and the elephant are right up at the top! I also could not bring myself to kill a dog, cat, cow or a pig, but I could kill a chicken, a frog, a rat, a snake….and of course, fish, although the tuna is no longer on that ‘permissible’ list due to the same heavy metal accumulations in their flesh …..so I don’t eat beef or pork, but I do eat the others.

Elizabeth Fitzgerald

The author of this article references the PM who stated “that the practice in Taiji is a historical tradition”. Yet later in the article the author admits the practice of dolphin hunting began in 1969. That certainly is not a longstanding “tradition”, as the PM and others portray it to be. He and many others are using “tradtition and culture” as a cover for greed.

I have been watching the hunts in Taiji daily for 6 months. It is a brutal and cruel practice. I do not have hatred for Japan or the Japanese people as a whole. However, by watching the traumatic torture and slaughter of these intelligent and feeling animals in huge numbers day in and day out, I can not help but grow hatred for those fishermen laughing and cheering while stabbing the writhing dolphins, or the trainers tackling the struggling dolphins to wrestle them into a life of captivity, for which they earn upwards of $125,000 per dolphin. I witnessed the baby albino be taken from it’s mother, only to later read an article where the Taiji Whale Museum said it “saved the albino after it’s mother rejected it”. Those commiting these atrocities are doing it purely for money. If they felt there was truly nothing wrong with it, they would not hide their slaughters behind tarps, move the newly captured animals in the darkness of night, or make up lies about their actions.

Yes, people across the entire world are getting angrier and angrier at Japan, and not just at the fishermen. I think that is in part because if you do not stand up against injustices, it is comparable to condoning them. For those of us outside of Japan who feel so strongly about this, our frustration and anger grows with each day that we witness more pods slaughtered and with each day that passes with our pleas being ignored. People, myself included, are determined to do what they can to have this come to an end. Many are taking action by boycotting Japanese products. The controversy caused by one small group of fishermen is likely doing permanent damage to the world’s image of Japan, and potentially it’s economy in the future if the hunt continues. Numerous governments across the world have already made public statements condemning the hunt.

I understand people need money to survive, but there are humane and inhumane ways to make money. Suggestions have been made where fishermen could make money without the slaughters and captive selections, such as by developing a dolphin watching program similar to whale watching in the US, where people pay to go out and see the animals in their natural habitat. I urge those in support of the hunt to rethink their views. It is possible to create a new, peaceful practice for the hunters of Taiji which will in turn improve the current image of Japan.

There are hundreds of thousands of us speaking out via petitions, tweets and emails, and we pledge to continue until the hunt has ended. It is my hope that we will be heard and this will be resolved quickly and peacefully.

Mike O’Brien

“If they felt there was truly nothing wrong with it, they would not hide their slaughters behind tarps”

Sorry but that isn’t a logical assumption. First I don’t know of many slaughterhouses that have glass walls and kill animals in public. Second, they know that the protesters use any photos they can get to inflame the emotions of their followers, so it only makes sense to prevent their opponents from getting more photos.

“move the newly captured animals in the darkness of night”

Another false assumption. Again they know the protesters use photos from transfers and harrass the movements that it only makes sense to minimize the chances their opponents have to interfer. Also it makes sense to do any time senstive shipping at night when traffic is lighter.

I am not saying your suppositions are completely wrong just that your blatant assumptions that the only reason is because they know they are wrong is just PR from groups like GreenPeace and SSCS.

“It is possible to create a new, peaceful practice for the hunters of Taiji which will in turn improve the current image of Japan.”

Merely claiming that something is possible does not make it so.

Janna Harttgen

No, the fishermen really don’t seem to know that they are wrong. Otherwise we wouldn’t hear them laughing and cheating or see them sitting and stepping on (almost) dead dolphins.
Yes, they hide the slaughter because they know that activists from all over the world are watching them. For no other reason.
Obviously, the fishermen don’t know that they are wrong. They don’t even seem to think about it. But they do know that the world is shocked – and instead of thinking it over, they choose to hide their cruel and inhumane activities behind tarps.

“Merely claiming that something is possible does not make it so.”

Where’s the point in that?
Just because there is no guarantee, we shouldn’t even try to change anything?

Mike O’Brien

“Obviously, the fishermen don’t know that they are wrong.”

And naturally YOU are right. I mean you are always right and the world would be a Utopia if people would just listen to you.

“their cruel and inhumane activities”

Those
are your opinions. It seems pretty obvious that the fishermen don’t
agree with your opinions. So attributing their actions to those feelings
is foolish.

So just based on the possibility that it would work
they should give up their livelihood. Then if it doesn’t work they are
just SOL? Sorry but when people are dealing with their ability to
provide food and shelter for their families they are going to want a bit
more than some random person saying I think this might be possible.

JimLight

Actually there are commonly agreed to yardsticks by which government measure cruelty and inhumanness. So they are not just opinions, they are accepted standards. The method of killing dolphins after drives is, by modern societal norms, cruel and inhumane. The Japanese government would not allow steer to be killed the way the dolphins are…

The fishermen would be wise to adapt a new livelihood as killing dolphins is one legislative action away from being past history.

Mike O’Brien

Actually no there are not and any that did exists are still just opinions.

And as people keep pointing out cattle are domestic and dolphins aren’t.

Janna Harttgen

“Those

are your opinions. It seems pretty obvious that the fishermen don’t agree with your opinions.”

Wrong.

First of all: when it comes to my opinion, there is no humane way to kill a dolphin. But my own opinion and the opinions of the Taiji “fishermen” are of NO interest here. This is not about opinions!

Thanks to the videos and photos we can consider it a fact that the dolphin massacre in Taiji is inhumane for several reasons.

“Sorry but when people are dealing with their ability to
provide food and shelter for their families they are going to want a bit
more than some random person saying I think this might be possible.”

Of course they want a bit more than that.
This is something they have in common with billions of people all over the world. Including me 🙂
According to UNICEF, over 22.000 children die each day due to poverty.
Sooo… what do you think? How many of these poor children in Wakayama?

Even in the poorest regions on earth, there is humanity, there are laws, and there is animal welfare.
I would guess that these fishermen and their families don’t know what hunger is, and that they’ll probably never know. But even if they did, it wouldn’t justify what happens in the cove of Taiji.
Anyway, don’t try to tell me that the “fishermen” of Taiji do what they do to esacpe poverty. Because THAT really is poor.

Mike O’Brien

“Wrong. ”

No Right. It is obvious the fishermen don’t hold the same opinions you do or they wouldn’t be doing what they do.

If it is not about opinions why do you keep posting so much about your opinions?

“Anyway, don’t try to tell me that the “fishermen” of Taiji do what they do to esacpe poverty. Because THAT really is poor.”

Well good thing that I didn’t tell you that.

Colleen Phillips

Every site gets a “Mike O’Brien” who is not really interested in the topic of the site at all but in being argumentative. If you were truely interested in offering a valid argument you would first do some research on the area of Taiji. A google maps street view would show you the opulence in this ‘fishing town’ as apposed to other similar fishing towns. Also, the opulence belongs only to a handful of the people of Taiji involved in the dolphin slaughter. The rest of the townsfolk remain quiet, ashamed and poor.

Mike O’Brien

If you truly had a brain that worked you would know that google maps street view would not say anything about who owns what and would thus be a waste of time. You would also know that even if all the people involved in the dolphin hunts made $1 million a year, it still wouldn’t be relevant.

Colleen Phillips

Cute! Read your own posts kiddo. No, I do not have a brain – I am human.

Mike O’Brien

I have read my own post. And having a brain I can actually comprehend them.
“No, I do not have a brain” At least there is one thing we can agree on.

Colleen Phillips

Good, we are agreed then, you do not have a brain and you contradict yourself. There, made your day, I replied to your post, now you can rant again about nothing in particular other than Mike O’Brien.

JimLight

how many children die of poverty in Taiji? Are you really putting forth the argument that because 22,000 children die annually from poverty that therefore drive kills in Taiji are required?

Janna Harttgen

🙂 No 🙂
Please read it again 🙂
xxxx

justaguy

“Merely claiming that something is possible does not make it so.” Unless something is logically or physically impossible, it is, by definition, possible. Are you going to make the ridiculous claim that it is physically impossible for the town of Taiji to find 50 new jobs?

Mike O’Brien

No I am not going to claim that. Are you going to claim that it is just a snap of teh fingers and 50 new jobs appear? Because if it was that simple why would there be unemployment anywhere?

Yeah O’Brien has sold out his sole and morality, and is employed by the Japanese government as a corporate whore. It’s an occupation that demands a lack of compassion, minimal conscience, a passion for the art of deception and a personality well insulated with greedy desires and white washed with a thick coat of sleaze. This kind of public relations work is a mercenary profession, a form of corporate whoring devoid of morals where all that matters is the fee for services rendered. However I rather enjoy having a creepy forum clown around as it is easy to have fun with him.

examplesample

in·hu·mane
ˌin(h)yo͞oˈmān/
adjective
without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.

Stabbing nursing mothers in front of their babies and then laughing about it like you’re at a comedy show is inhumane. These males are inhumanely killing these dolphins. You don’t get to change the definition of inhumane just because some Japanese dudes don’t agree with it.

AmIJustAPessimistOrWhat?

“cannot help but grow hatred” … hmmmmm

d0323

“If they felt there was truly nothing wrong with it, they would not hide their slaughters behind tarps”

The killers, having no empathy for dolphins, think there’s nothing wrong with what they’re doing, but they’re afraid the general public will think otherwise, so they try to hide what they’re doing.

Mike O’Brien

So cattle slaughterhouses just have walls because they think the general public (who buys their meat) think there is something wrong with their operation?

justaguy

They hide it because they constantly lie about how ‘humane’ their killing methods are. Seeing the dolphins twitch and writhe about for several minutes with a metal rod partially jutting into their spinal cords is clearly less humane than the stunning and CO2 methods used on livestock. Since one of the very few arguments in defense of dolphin killing depends on the “You kill cows, we kill dolphins; what’s the difference?” line, allowing more evidence of that difference(i.e., footage of the kill) is unacceptable to them.

Morgane Tinland

totally agree with you!!

Donna Carattini

VERY WELL said !! Im gonna copy and post for others to read. You couldnt have said it any better!!! Thumbs UPPPP

jake hoek

Compare this with the profitable killing of babies! Those “doctors, laboratories etc, are all inwardly or not,SMILING all the way to the banks”!! But of course we MUST make room in this small world for animals! Enough said.

woodenfish

Your argument sounds passionate and sincere, and I am sure you are both. But like many others posters, here and elsewhere, you don’t seem to know much about the economic effect of dolphin presence on small-scale coastal fisheries. The following numbers are very approximate, due to differences in species, population densities in different places and so on, but they at least deserve some consideration.

Adult dolphins eat about 4-5% of their own body weight in fish every day (nursing females eat about 8%). This translates into about 20-40kg of fish per dolphin per day. In places where there are high concentrations of dolphins, their daily consumption therefore runs to many thousands of kilograms. For small-scale coastal fishermen, this degree of competition is unwelcome, and sometimes crippling — depending on the populations of other fish. Furthermore dolphin populations follow more-or-less specific routes through the oceans, so that fishing communities on those routes (like Taiji) are constantly disadvantaged compared to fishing communities elsewhere.

This is not a Japanese problem. In “Voices of The Old Sea”, the travel writer Norman Lewis describes living in a fishing community on the Costa Brava in Spain in the early 1950s. Poverty was endemic, equipment was basic and catches were always small. The appearance of dolphins offshore was seasonal. So deeply were they loathed that when one was caught in a net, it would be mutilated and then released to die somewhere out at sea. The intention was to frighten other dolphins away. It worked, too — usually for about a week.

In the past, coastal fishermen in places like Taiji could survive on small catches, local sales, odd jobs and bartering. In the modern economy, they must catch and sell far more fish to pay for a standard of living that most of their critics take for granted in their own lives. That is why the mass “culling” of dolphins is a relatively recent phenomenon, “beginning” in 1969 or thereabouts. But fishermen around the world have been killing dolphins individually for centuries.

woodenfish

Your argument sounds passionate and sincere, and I am sure you are both. But like many others posters, here and elsewhere, you don’t seem to know much about the economic effect of dolphin presence on small-scale coastal fisheries. The following numbers are very approximate, due to differences in species, population densities in different places and so on, but they at least deserve some consideration.

Adult dolphins eat about 4-5% of their own body weight in fish every day (nursing females eat about 8%). This translates into about 20-40kg of fish per dolphin per day. In places where there are high concentrations of dolphins, their daily consumption therefore runs to many thousands of kilograms. For small-scale coastal fishermen, this degree of competition is unwelcome, and sometimes crippling — depending on the populations of other fish. Furthermore dolphin populations follow more-or-less specific routes through the oceans, so that fishing communities on those routes (like Taiji) are constantly disadvantaged compared to fishing communities elsewhere.

This is not a Japanese problem. In “Voices of The Old Sea”, the travel writer Norman Lewis describes living in a fishing community on the Costa Brava in Spain in the early 1950s. Poverty was endemic, equipment was basic and catches were always small. The appearance of dolphins offshore was seasonal. So deeply were they loathed that when one was caught in a net, it would be mutilated and then released to die somewhere out at sea. The intention was to frighten other dolphins away. It worked, too — usually for about a week.

In the past, coastal fishermen in places like Taiji could survive on small catches, local sales, odd jobs and bartering. In the modern economy, they must catch and sell far more fish to pay for a standard of living that most of their critics take for granted in their own lives. That is why the mass “culling” of dolphins is a relatively recent phenomenon, “beginning” in 1969 or thereabouts. But fishermen around the world have been killing dolphins individually for centuries.

If you want the Taiji fishermen to stop the cull and bear the consequences to their fishery, you must surely address these facts. Suggesting that they “develop a dolphin-watching program” sounds very nice, but is not a practical way of sustaining the whole community. Meanwhile, how much of your own life are you prepared to give up because people from elsewhere disapprove of it?

AmIJustAPessimistOrWhat?

Specifically it is the Media Frenzy Hate Fest and Partisan Taunting which I cannot bear to watch. Through adroit spin control millions of people are prompted with one sided media cues to focus worldwide hatred upon a handful of …. fishermen; and of course this results in financial reward in the form of donations for the spin controllers. I think Taiji is providing a very good ROI for Sea Shepard.

I think that someone somewhere is studying the dolphin gathering part of the training videos supplied by Sea Shepard, and the industry will eventually move to a country with lower labor and infrastructure costs.
The media spin does not mention that paying to go and watch dolphins at an aquatic park which does not raise the dolphins themselves provides the market demand for dolphin gathering. I would venture that is because many of the donations come from people who came to admire dolphins after visiting such parks.

Elizabeth Fitzgerald

Thousands have been talking about the marine parks non-stop as well, and how they drive the desire for the hunt. Some of the main reasons the hunt in Taiji has made it to the media is because of the movies The Cove and Blackfish (which is all about the park SeaWorld and how they attain and treat marine life in captivity). People are boycotting the marine parks and signing petitions against them. We realize if there was no demand, there would be no need to supply… though it is my understanding some eat the mercury laiden dolphin meat in Japan as well, so even without the captive incentive, I don’t think the hunt would stop.

Pushing back against speculation that fallout from the film “Blackfish” is hurting its business, SeaWorld Entertainment Inc.
said Monday that its world-famous marine parks set a fourth-quarter
attendance record and that it will soon report the highest annual
revenue in its 50-year history.”

Yeah and those petitions and boycotts are sure having an effect.

Janna Harttgen

In many parts of the world, as in Germany where I come from, these efforts do have an effect. In other parts of the world it takes longer and there still is a lot of work to do. That’s why discussions like these are so important. So… thank you for joining in 😉

JimLight

SeaWorld increased food prices and entrance fees to artificially spike revenues. Then they issued incentives to create demand the last quarter. Their performance lagged many theme parks.

The ride ahead looks rough. Their primary stockholder sold a big piece of their shares. And SeaWorld has to service some huge debt in upcoming years. A poll on the impact of Blackfish shows the young we’re most affected by the documentary. That is their current and future demographic.

Mike O’Brien

So even with higher food prices and entrance fees people where still
willing to pay to come see captive dolphins. Thanks for showing the
level of support for the boycott.

Would that be the demographic that was willing to pay higher entrance fees and higher food prices to see captive dolphins?

disqus_3gsmeQwuKi

Yes Mike,
Let us celebrate the slaughter, abuse and brutal kidnapping of dolphins so that they may perform circus tricks for kind fellas like yerself.
You must be awfully proud.

Mike O’Brien

Not celebrating anything. Just posting the facts. Sorry that facts upset you so much. maybe your lithium needs to be increased?

justaguy

Hey Troll O’Trollin – get a life. You’re not posting “just the facts”. You’re taking the less popular side of an issue, defending the Taiji hunters by nitpicking everyone else’s posts here. And now, you’re just resorting to insults with that ‘lithium’ comment. You’re clearly the one here with a mental illness; why else would you spend so much time arbitrarily defending the dolphin hunt and trying to make enemies with other people anonymously?

Mike O’Brien

Hey Pissant O’Trollin – get a clue. I have posted facts again and again. People just don’t seem to want to accept reality when it hurts their poor little beliefs.

JimLight

Back to insults again.

JimLight

Time will tell. I believe what we are witnessing is a building groundswell of opposition to captive cetaceans. Four countries have prohibited it so far. The younger demographic will determine SeaWorld’s future – and the more kids who get exposed to the Cove and Blackfish and similar information the more rapidly SeaWorld will have to adapt of go after business. SeaWorld would be wise to proactively change their business model and offerings before they are past the point of no return. I, for one am committed to spreading the word to accelerate that great day when there are no captive cetaceans in the US. It seems there are a lot like me out there.

JimLight

I believe the cat is out of the bag and it is only a matter of time before SeaWorld’s debt, declining attendance, changing regulatory environment, and increased costs put them out of business or at least shift their business model from cetacean shows. They are losing the upcoming generation. Four nations have already banned cetacean entertainment venues… More are sure to follow.

ETJ

Much of the media HAS been mentioning prominently the link between the live cetacean trade and these hunts. This article, however, did not make one mention of it. If people have to see enslaved dolphins at parks doing stupid tricks in order to admire dolphins, then those people are shallow indeed. I am pretty sure the people donating to efforts aimed at stopping dolphin and whale hunts are not visiting marine parks.

Jason Economides

So I suppose the millions who rose up against such abhored regimes/practices like apartheid; slavery; even the near annihilation of the jews during WWII and so many other causes were also really just supporting those causes because of some kind of media frenzy? The reason why there has been such a so-called media frenzy recently is because millions of people have been reading tweets, facebook posts etc on the quite obviously inhumane slaughtering of these creatures and people have actually been tweeting @ news stations ASKING them to cover the story because they are disgusted by what they see. ahh…but I guess that millions of people being disgusted by what they see isn’t reason enough to stop it…..what we should really do is just listen to the 50 people (the fishermen) who seem to think it’s okay to do what they are doing. The reason why dolphins and orcas are put on show in aquariums is because everyone knows that they are super intelligent animals, that are capable of being trained, and more than that they are self aware, and do ‘really cool things’. This self-awareness is evidenced by the screaming you hear of the dolphins (just watch the livestreaming from Seashepherds any evening that a hunt is taking place) while their fellow pod members/family members are being taken from them or murdered. No – there is no ‘media frenzy here’….in fact, it hasn’t even started yet. The main reason that the media has covered this more of-late than other years is thanks to the fishermen bringing in over 200 dolphins (somewhat of a record, I hear) in one particular drive in the last couple of weeks. They usually manage to bring in between 5-20, but that’s not of any interest….then suddenly 200+ it becomes quite a topic. I’m horrified that it has taken a 200+ dolphin drive for this to bring the issue front an centre, but thankful that the fishermen made the mistake of making such a high-profile drive, as it has made millions more people aware of this terrible practice. And there are many more horrible practices such as shark finning, where sharks are literally picked out of the water, still alive, having their fins sliced off, and then thrown back into the water…..still alive…..Keep going Sea Shepherds, you have my unfettered support.

AmIJustAPessimistOrWhat?

You are saying murdering six million jews is equivalent to dolphin hunting. Goodbye.

Jason Economides

That wasn’t what I was saying at all. I was just trying to point out that there have been many terrible things that have happened in history – and when people stood up to them, it wasn’t simply because of some random one-sided media frenzy – it was because those attrocities were REAL.

AnimuX

Japan’s government spends about ¥782 million (US$9.78 million) annually to prop up the whaling industry. More than enough money to retrain whalers and dolphin killers to do something else with their lives.

Mike O’Brien

So, Japan has all these jobs openings that displaced workers can get? I mean training someone for a new job that doesn’t exists serves no purpose.

justaguy

Of all your comments, this one is the silliest. There are tens of thousands of job openings across Japan. The population of Taiji has been shrinking rapidly, partly due to old folks dying, but partly due to young people leaving town for jobs in other cities. Every one of the killers could find work elsewhere. And before you predictably cry, “but then they’d have to leave their precious hometown,” most rational, thoughtful human beings don’t consider a stubborn emotional attachment to a small town to be anywhere near as important as the lives of thousands of dolphins.

Mike O’Brien

Really tens of thousands of open jobs? Then why is anybody in Japan unemployed? Talk about silly comments, yours takes the cake.

And you need to get a psychotic check up. Oops I meant psychic check up. I would never say anything against people having to move to find jobs. My family moved 3 times while I was growing up as my father changed jobs and I have moved myself a number of times for better jobs. So nice try but another major Fail.

Simon_V

Well put, Mr Hasegawa!
Certainly attacking the hunters themselves is unlikely to persuade them, or the rest of Japan, that they should stop.
But there is one important point missing in your article: the question of “who pays for the hunt”.

The answer is by no means “the market for dolphin meat” which is highly localised and extremely small, or “government subsidies” which would not dare to subsidise one marine fishery industry over the others.

The major force behind the hunt is the continued worldwide demand for LIVE dolphins.
And who is it that buys live dolphins? The more than 50 dolphinaria in Japan (not counting seasonal “sea pens” in seaside resorts) and the still growing market in China, the Middle East and the rest of Asia.
SeaWorld, the leading lady of this industry, washes its hands of the problem and proclaims that it no longer gets its dolphins from the hunt at Taiji, but it has taken no measures beyond lip-service to enforce the agreements of WAZA upon its associate organisation JAZA. On the contrary, SeaWorld remains the idol of those who would profit from the captivity of marine animals. They hide behind claims of education and conservation, but the reality is different.

We CAN do something about this problem, if only we can find the courage to refuse to go to events at dolphinaria, to explain to our children why we refuse to allow them to join their classmates on such excursions, to persuade schools and other organisations not to be taken in by the “educational value” of seeing prisoners abused into performing unnatural acts in a desolate cell.
We need to end the demand to live dolphins, and then the hunt will die out.

Mike O’Brien

“if only we can find the courage to refuse to go to events at dolphinaria,”

But if the Western dolphinaria no longer get their dolphins from Taiji, then not going to them will have no effect on Taiji.

Simon_V

Not so.
Until we in the west have abolished dolphinaria, we have no authority to tell the rest of the world that they can’t have dolphins. [N.B. I am a Briton domiciled in Japan.]

Where did SeaWorld get its first orcas, (which are a kind of dolphin)? Their hands are not clean.

I think the slaughter at Taiji should be used to open the eyes of people who visit SeaWorld and its like to what goes on before dolphins become the object of their amusement, and hopefully convince them that we should not be capturing dolphins for dismal lives in circuses.

Forcing an end to the slaughter in Taiji _without_ ending the industry of captive dolphins will only move the scene of activity to other, less visible countries such as the Solomons. There are poor people all over the world with access to the sea.

Yes, the slaughter in Taiji is inhumane. But do we protest the far more widespread and equally cruel slaughter of cattle for the Halal market? There are Youtube videos of the process, carried out by machine…if you can bear to watch them.

Joshua

So, why is it ok to slaughter cows, pigs, lambs, chicken, tuna, and salmon, but not dolphins?

Janna Harttgen

It is totally NOT okay to slaughter ANY animals the way they slaughter the dolphins in Taiji. These dolphins have no food for days, live in terrible fear for days, witness how their family members get slaughtered and their families are torn apart. It can often be seen that dolphins drown, because the fishermen tie the dolphin’s tail fins to their boats, so the dolphins are unable to bring their heads up and breathe. They say they only do this with dead dolphins, but it happens all the time that some tied up dolphins are still alive at that time. If ANYONE does this to ANY animal ANYWHERE in the world and activists notice it, they will be there. I promise.

mjholm

Apples and oranges.It’s not okay but there are laws ensuring the slaughter is monitored and humane even in Japan. Most of those animals are raised specifically as food and belong to the respective countries they are slaughtered in. Japan does not own these dolphins who happen to swim by the cove. They have no right to murder them. Not to mention, dolphins are highly intelligent, compassionate and emotional. They have been known to save humans on many occasions and will grieve for their lost loved ones.The way they are savagely herded into the cove, starved, forced to see their families killed while they swim in their blood and then the lucky ones get a rod rammed into their spine and then are allowed to slowly drown and die over a period of time lasting up to an hour. The unlucky ones get shipped to abusement parks to live their lives hungry and tortured in concrete fishbowls. How can you even begin to justify this? Have you no heart? Why are there no laws in Japan ensuring the humane treatment of dolphins?

Mike O’Brien

“Most of those animals are raised specifically as food” Yeah just ignore the ones that aren’t raised specifically for food.

And sorry but Japan does ‘own’ the dolphins. Just as much as fishermen ‘own’ the fish they catch and crabbers ‘own’ the crabs they catch. So yes actually they do have the right to kill them. Oh and murder requires the victim to be a human.

They have also been known to attack humans and will attack and kill the young of other cetacean species.

mjholm

First of all they are not fish so these killers should not be referred to as fisherman. It’s not a matter of ignoring the ones raised for food but in Japan there are laws protecting these animals so why not for cetaceans?. I know why, . greed. The Japanese “fisherman” have a perception that the dolphins are depleting their fish and also make big bucks selling the pretty ones to dolphinariums, Attack humans, really. Prove it! Did a big bad dolphin bite you? It seems like you have no issues with them suffering. That says a lot for you.

Mike O’Brien

First of all we know they aren’t fish, but since dolphinerman isn’t a word and everyone (including you) understands what is meant when fisherman is used in relation to hunting dolphins, stop being pedantic.

Oh the horror. People who want to make money so they can feed clothe and house their families. What monsters.

It seems like you like to make assumptions and demonize people. I realize it makes it easier for you to show just how much better than everyone else you are. but unfortunately it also shows just how sad and pathetic you are.

Maryann Mahoney

“It seems like you like to make assumptions and demonize people. I
realize it makes it easier for you to show just how much better than
everyone else you are. but unfortunately it also shows just how sad and
pathetic you are.”

Pretty ironic isn’t it. Sounds like you are talking about yourself. You are not interested in this discussion, you are just interested in making people wrong and you “right”. Have fun with that.

Mike O’Brien

And the peanut gallery chimes in.

Sorry that you don’t agree with someone posting facts. I mean I know it is horrible that someone wants to rely on actual science and facts rather than emotion and belief. I am sure life is perfect in the fantasy utopia where you live, but most people live in the physical word where facts have meaning.

JimLight

Please enlighten us with some “facts”. Simple contradiction is hardly statement of facts.

Jason Economides

Well as you like ‘facts’ so much, perhaps here’s a fact that you might care to notice – I haven’t noticed any comments, not even one so far, on this board so far that is saying ‘Mike, well done, you have a point – keep going, because the world needs someone like you to keep talking about facts’. Why? Because you don’t have a point, and even if you did, I am yet to see a stampede of people reading this column supporting you. The fact is, the majority of people who have seen the news stories, footage etc are of the opinion that this practice in Taiji (and indeed other places like the faroe islands) are pretty unhappy about it. With all this talk from you asking everyone to prove that there really are jobs out there for the fisherman, and that there is huge unemployment is irritating. Are there other jobs out there for the fisherman. Maybe, maybe not. Is there unemployment out there in Japan? Yes there is. Well there is unemployment in every country, but that doesn’t mean that until alternative employment is found for those people, it makes it okay to do certain things.

Mike O’Brien

Well here is another fact for you. Your claim that ‘the majority of people who have seen the news stories, footage etc are of the opinion that this practice in Taiji (and indeed other places like the faroe islands) are pretty unhappy about it.” is an opinion not a fact. I guess maybe that is why you like to write ‘fact’, because you don’t really know what the word means.

Oh no Jason is irritated. What will I do? i didn’t want to irritate Jason.

“but that doesn’t mean that until alternative employment is found for those people, it makes it okay to do certain things.” And I never said it did. But what it does mean is they can continue to conduct their legal business for as long as they like. And all your whining and being irritated won’t stop them.

Jason Economides

Am I irritated? I don’t believe I said that.

Mike O’Brien

Well you seem to be. And you said you were. So unless you are just a liar, your own words say that yes you are irritated.

“With all this talk from you asking everyone to prove that there really
are jobs out there for the fisherman, and that there is huge
unemployment is irritating.”

Jason Economides

Yup. Irritating – I didn’t say to who though, did I?

Mike O’Brien

Ah, so you believe your omniscient, know what others think and can speak for them?

Jason Economides

Omniscient – well that’s going a bit far. I think I’ve observed enough posts on this board, to make that one assumption, given the responses you seem to attract . But omniscient, I am not.

Jason Economides

It may well CURRENTLY be legal for them to go about this business, but it is reasonable to assume that the reasons for so many people ‘whining’ about this, is because the don’t believe it ought to be legal. There have been many things in history that have been legal at one point or another (e.g. slavery) and where there has been enough dissent, these laws been changed so that those activities have become illegal. So us ‘whiners’ (and I’m proud to be one if that is the term you’d like to use, because I actually give a shit about the dolphins), will continue to ‘whine’, until these practices ARE deemed illegal bringing a stop to it.

JimLight

You accuse a poster of demonizing and then you cast your own insults at the poster. You are guilty of the same act you accuse poster of.

Joshua

Can you prove one also saved someone?
Also, why are tuna, crab, and other stuff caught in the ocean not immune?

justaguy

Do you not see any sort of a difference between a crab and a dolphin? Equating those two species just for the sake of an argument is either disingenuous or a sign of complete mental deficiency.

Joshua

They are both living creatures, with a brain, feelings, and a family. Crab is tasty. When I had the chance to buy dolphin meat, I didn’t because I was 4 hours away from home and had no way to cook it.

justaguy

Don’t get too worked up. Mr. O’Brien is either a sociopath or a troll, so let’s not take him too seriously. His comments are not those of a sane, normal person. 🙂

Simon_V

N.B The number of dolphins killed at Taiji is insignificant compared to the number harpooned out at sea in Northern Japan, which is itself tiny compared to the number of dolphins (turtles, seabirds an other non-food species) caught and killed slowly in fishing nets. There are so many more-important problems to be dealt with. The only reason for concentrating on Taiji is that the target is easy to define, to film, to report on, to attack, and to arouse the emotions of those who fund the best-publicised activist organisations. 🙁

Mike O’Brien

Just to add to your information.

In Peru over 10,000 dolphins are killed every year and their meat is used as bait for catching sharks.

JimLight

And it is illegal in Peru…people are protesting it there as well. So what’s your point?

Ibrahim Ahmad

another addition information

A developed civilized country called Denmark. still retain tradition on dolphin hunting and its legal.

JimLight

As part of the EU, dolphin and whale hunting are illegal in Denmark. The Faroe Islands is a territory of Denmark with its own parliament. The whale/dolphin drive kills are in the Faroe Islands not Denmark. Sea Shepherd protests these kills as well with the support of local Faroese.

JimLight

No it is illegal in Denmark. The Faeroe Islands, a territory of Denmark with its own parliament, ignores the EU law.

JimLight

Not true, dolphin hunting is illegal in Denmark. The Faeroe Islands, a territory of Denmark with its own Parliament, ignore EU law and conducts the “Grind”. People protest this activity as well.

So as you can see, this is not a case of the world singling out Japan. This is a case of the world opposing a barbaric practice regardless of where it occurs.

mjholm

So that makes this okay? Simon what do you do to address those problems?

ETJ

This article conveniently forgets to mention the large sums of money paid for the live dolphins brutally captured and enslaved during these drive hunts. These hunts did not start until the late 1960’s, right around the time that marine parks were being established and seen as profitable. How this could be linked with tradition or culture is ludicrous. The article also does not address Japanese animal welfare laws which clearly prohibit torture and suffering of all animals. Anyone who has watched the undercover videos, and livestreams of the Taiji slaughters can attest to the brutality and cruelty of the methods used. Finally, dolphins are NOT FISH. They are sentient, intelligent, family oriented MAMMALS. To call the dolphin killers “fishermen” is a factual error. These dolphins are not being killed for anyone’s sustenance; by all accounts the vast majority of Japanese people do not eat dolphin or even whale. Much of the meat ends up as fertilizer or pet food. The dolphin killers of Taiji, all 50 or so of them, will not die of starvation if they cease their abominable torture and barbaric slaughter of dolphins. They could actually try real fishing for a change; for real fish, not mammals. Or dolphin and whale watching tours. Perhaps the government of Japan could use the vast funds currently being spent for “security” for their dolphin and whale hunts to retrain and educate the few killers of dolphins to pursue a new and more humane line of work. Perhaps if Japan would stop this horror, more tourists would visit Wakayama Prefecture and Taiji, if they knew dolphins were not being tortured there. For a true picture of the depravity and inhumanity of this; visit the Taiji Whale Museum, where you can watch enslaved dolphins do stupid tricks for dead fish (having first been tube or force fed same, if they survive that inhumane process), see dolphin fetuses preserved in vats of formaldehyde (having been cut out of their murdered mothers’ wombs), various other grotesque “artifacts”, oh and let’s not forget, that while watching the dolphins do circus tricks, you can actually purchase the meat of their butchered families in the gift shop. So please explain again what part of this savagery is ancient tradition and culture? Those of us against the Japanese drive hunts are also opposed and speak out as much against cetacean captivity and hunting everywhere. As well as cruelty to any animal, including cows, pigs, chickens, so please spare me the “but you eat cows. chickens and pigs” argument because firstly, I do not, and secondly, we are talking about dolphins, WILD animals, not livestock, being brutally ripped from their home, the ocean, which we seem determined to completely destroy, and then tortured, harassed, and killed in the most inhumane way imaginable. That is unless they are pretty enough to be sold for big bucks to marine parks, and then their fate is even worse. A lifetime of slavery in a tiny tank and dead fish and force fed medications they would never need in the wild, and doing tricks in order to be fed and no more family members to live with and love. What a dishonorable – and completely bogus – tradition. Follow the money. That’s the sorry truth of this atrocity.

Erika Robinson

Amen. Very well written ETJ.
Oh, and one last important piece of information: a Japanese article written about 15 years ago mentioned the need to kill dolphins because they are basically vermin. . .eating the fish that fishermen need to catch for their livelihood. This also amounts to greed: if the Japanese cannot harvest the fish, then no one (or animal) shall either. Has it never occurred to them that their pollution of the ocean is what is killing off the fish schools that they are now blaming the dolphins for eating too many of? Or that ALL humans are over-fishing the oceans and over polluting the oceans. . .killing fish, etc that the dolphins depend on? It all boils down to human greed and lack of responsibility.
I could go on-and-on, but won’t as many other contributors have outlined why Taiji needs to rethink this so-called “tradition”.

Mike O’Brien

“They could actually try real fishing for a change; for real fish, not mammals.” They do that also.

“Or dolphin and whale watching tours.” There are 5 whale/dolphin watching companies in the Taiji region.

drivin98

That’s good, but I think the bigger point ETJ was making is that there of other ways to make money other than killing dolphins.

Bruce H. Crocker

Excellent comment, ETJ…well written and right on point!! Another consideration which the apologists for the “drive hunts” fail to take into consideration is that these dolphins which are herded into their cove of hell by the banger boats are NOT their dolphins to do with as they please!! They are not indigenous to those waters, but are rather simply “passers-by” on a migratory path and as such are a part of the World’s ocean ecology, which in my book, gives the non-citizen of Japan every right to remark on what they are doing with the dolphins they hunt down, kill or sell into slavery!!

Thuy Usahi

These people are destructive to themselves while taking the rest of us along with them. They must be stopped!

“Our #Oceans only survive because of the existence of our Marine Wildlife. They are the #Lifeblood of our aquatic world. We ground bound humans derive over 50% of our much needed oxygen as a byproduct of our seas. If we do not preserve and protect all #MarineWildlife we will soon find ourselves gasping for breath.”

Please SIGN – SHARE the Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans: Whales and Dolphins

Greetings.
Firstly, I am sorry to say that inevitably, there will be some people who use aggressive language to express their concern and dislike regarding the dolphin drive hunts.
However, it is very easy to cite this minority as a distraction from the real issues.
I see many more people expressing their concerns calmly, coolly and without general comment on the Japanese race.
Without judgement, arrogance or prejudice, simply with compassion.
As the human race evolves, many people in all countries face the insecurity and uncertainty of change and of progress, that result from greater understanding. They adapt, they evolve, and they find new ways. As scientific understanding of dolphins and whales grows, the capture and primitive killing of these intelligent and complex creatures becomes more and more distasteful.
Why do the drive hunters have the right to continue in their ways, without question or accountability? We all are obliged to learn to change our habits, to surmount difficulties and to try and act with greater understanding of the planet we live on, whenever and wherever we can. It is without doubt true, that this process is easier for some than for others. It is also without doubt true, that human beings everywhere must continue to strive to improve, to find more compassion and less arrogance.
Why should the dolphin drive hunters be exempt from this process?
Particularly as they do have alternatives available to them, the most obvious being ‘eco-tourism’, as many already successful wild dolphin watching projects both in Japan and elsewhere prove.
As it is understood in Buddhism, everything changes. We all have a choice, we can accept it, or fight it.

Morgane Tinland

Please stop defending this slaughter as a tradition… if it was really because of tradition, most japanese people would know about it… it’s not the case…. all the contrary! most japanese ignore that your country is still hunting dolphins and killing them… it’s a thing to take them to captivity, but why di they have to kill the others??? To survive you said?? they have such beautiful cars and houses for poor fishers!!! you say they’re only doing their job but don’t like it…. so why are they smiling so hard whan they’re killing dolphins…. and drinking beers and eating durting the slaughter…. stop lying please…. your job is to be objective and not defending actions just because they are from your country… you said japanese eat dolphins meat because of tradition?? Wrong…. do you know about mercury…. 2000 ppm in taiji’s dolphins!!!! instead of 3 or 4 ppm authorized!!!! so please, stop lying! taiji’s killers are poisonning japanese people with the gov autorisation!! it can’t continue!!! it must stop!!!!
And stop trying to make us as bad as you can to defend the fishers-killers-butchers!! we don’t hate japanese people, we only hate taiji’s killers and what they are doing to such emotionals creatures.
Do you think that children who come to the taiji whale museum-prison agree with taiji’s slaughter?? Do you think they only know what they are doing there?? no…. One day, a killer said that they were finished if the world comes to know about taiji…. so it’s the beginning of the end for them because now the world’s on taiji….

Morgane Tinland

so wher’s my comment?? you don’t like to hear the truth and don’t want others to know it…. take of this newspaper defending a slaughter!!!

Dawn Stackalis

So in other words Taiji’s culture and tradition is in SLAVERY? Because I live in a prefecture of Japan and no one I have asked has ever eaten dolphin. They had eaten whale previously but that was after the war as a way to survive.
The fact is 95% of the drive is done for the sole purpose of obtaining dolphins and pilot whales for the captive industry. There is no way of getting around that.
I for one can not speak for others posting here . But for me I do not dislike Japanese people or the country as a whole. I despise the handful of fishermen in Taiji and the Japanese Government for continuing to lie to the world about the truth behind the drives.. And that is the ENSLAVE another for profit. So call it what it is.. It is the CAPTIVE SLAVE TRADE and Taiji Wakayama Prefecture benefits immensely from that.
If they just slaughtered to feed their prefecture then that would be called culture and tradition.. But to sell into a lifetime of slavery and treat in such an inhumane way is even by Japanese Law, signed into effect October 1973 not tolerable.

Dawn Stackalis

As Japanese officials continue to defend the ongoing slaughter of dolphins trapped in the infamous Taiji cove, deflecting international criticism of the practice under guise of “tradition,” one pesky detail has apparently been overlooked — the dolphin hunt is likely in violation of Japanese law.

Although there are no international regulations in place which protect dolphins from being killed, decades-old legislation in Japan prohibits inhumane treatment to animals.

According to Japan’s Act on Welfare and Management of Animals (Act No. 105 of October 1, 1973), the stated purpose of which is to prevent cruelty to animals and to “engender a feeling of love for animals among the people,” Taiji’s dolphin drive is by all interpretations illegal:

“All people must not only refrain from killing, injuring, and inflicting cruelty upon animals, but they must also treat animals properly taking their natural habits into account.”

While “cruelty” is a subjective term — and one that may not even apply to fishing and hunting — Japan’s dolphin hunt isn’t merely pushing the envelope in light of international standards, it’s shockingly out of step with established norms.

The standard method of killing dolphins used by fishermen in Taiji cove involves stabbing a thin metal rod behind the animal’s blowhole in an attempt to sever its spine. An independent assessment by Dr. Andrew Butterworth found that this method did not meet global expectations of “immediacy” required for animals being slaughtered, noting that dolphins continued to show signs of life 254 seconds after being stabbed.

“It would not be tolerated or permitted in any regulated slaughterhouse process in the developed world,” says Butterworth.

Japan’s dolphin hunt doesn’t even come close to meeting the guidelines for slaughter set forth by the World Organization for Animal Health — detached from the ethical question of whether dolphins should be killed in the first place. These conservative guidelines call for animals slaughtered for human consumption to be kept with minimal stress and killed swiftly with the least possible pain, fundamental courtesies enjoyed by countless cows, pigs, and chickens — but not dolphins in Taiji.

Even among those who might be apathetic about the slaughter of dolphins, the manner in which it is being conducted should be offensive by any measure.

Even if this law doesn’t technically cover hunting and fishing, the annual dolphin slaughter in Taiji is out of step with the spirit of the law, a cultural consideration of animal welfare. Considering that Japan already has laws in place to protect dolphins from such cruelties, any argument mounted in support of the ongoing dolphin hunt as “traditional” matters little if that tradition stands counter to Japanese law.

Laughing and joking over dead animals barbarically slaughtered is also unnecessary. Anyone who has visited Taiji, its disgusting Whale “Museum”, seen its hordes of police officers collaborating with the killers, and Shinzo Abe on posters in every corner – will realise this “fishing village” has deviated dangerously…

Whirled Peas

Oh come now, the kind of car the employees drive is irrelevant. You may be operating on a stereotyped idea of how fishermen should look, act, and live. And when they don’t fit your expectations, then to you they are not the real thing — not “salt of the earth enough” — and therefore not worthy of any kind of understanding, and deserving of every kind of contempt. Are you annoyed because they don’t fit the “look” you expect? Should they drive around in 20 year old battered Toyota pick ups (an excellent truck by the way). The Japanese are hard workers who work long hours and they are known to carefully save their money. So, if they want to treat themself to a nice car, far be it for you or anyone else to criticize. There are plenty of people in my country (USA) that live way beyond their means on credit. Or live in slums but have nice cars. You cannot necessarily judge their socio-econ status or niche by what they drive. And what do you expect the police to do? Saying that they are “collaborating with the killers” is cheap rhetoric. Police in any country (for better or worse) are an arm of the state and the status quo. And if the status quo in that community is to fish dolphins, then the police’s job is to protect that activity — until the status quo changes.

Sure, it would be terrific if the Taiji community would have the will and the means to transition to some other kind of community (dolphin watching, creating and selling other fish products, canning, artist colony, bait and tackle shops, or some other entrepreneurial angle), but that remains to be seen. It is not a simple matter for fishermen or whole fishing communities to transition to something else. If you were to tell the fishermen of theSan Francisco fleet that catching crab is now politically incorrect, but ” it’s okay, you can always find a job doing something else” — you’d be laughed or pushed off the pier. And for activists to blithely assert that “oh they can just find a job elsewhere,” is easy to say when it’s no skin their noses. If you or a parent or a friend has ever lost a job then you should know that it isn’t a simple matter to find employment or re-tool to a new skill set. And it is easy to demand changes that affect the livelihood of people you don’t know or care about. As I’ve said elsewhere, I am not unsympathetic to the dolphins’ plight, but the smugness and cavalier attitude has got to go.

Kathy Daxon

“They are fishing dolphins not because they are miserably wretched people who gain pleasure out of killing highly intelligent creatures, but because they simply need to sustain their life.”
I disagree the photos show them enjoying their work and the amount they make for selling the dolphins into captivity is quite a bit. Plus the park they want to build…. come on you surely don’t believe that the town would die without the slaughter.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Maybe because they love it because they imagine they can buy all kind of gifts for their children back home with the money they got from fishing? Have you ever make a positive image of why they love their job?

No right? Because dolphins are cute and intelligent and wild bores are ugly, you’ll go for bacon over dolphin sushi anytime, even though pigs have the intelligent like dolphins do but who cares dolphins are cute.

Mike O’Brien

” Or how you’ve been demonizing everyone who disagrees with the hunt by claiming we would rather see the poor fishermans’ children starve”

Sorry I never claimed that, but nice strawman.

Sam Duncombe

several omissions the drive hunts are fuel by the captivity industry – thee animals live in family groups and are forced to watch their families brutalized before them and swim in their blood.
they have demonstrated empathy, they are self aware, they swim many miles a day, to name a few the method of killing the dolphins is inhumane the way the dolphins are killed according to vets please see link http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10888705.2013.768925 “The method employed causes damage to the vertebral blood vessels and the vascular rete from insertion of the rod that will lead to signiﬁcant hemorrhage, but this alone would not produce a rapid death in a large mammal of this type. The method inducesparaplegia (paralysis of the body) and death through trauma and gradual blood loss. This killing method does not conform to the recognized requirement for “immediate insensibility” and would not be tolerated or permitted in any regulated slaughterhouse process in the developed world.” and for your information I do not support the killing of cows chicken pigs etc period!

cewing2301

have you lost your minds???? they force a dolphin to drown, they slaughter them. they stick metal spikes into their spine so they bleed internally so we wont see the waters turn red!! this by NO means is a “tradition” as you want to claim, this is ALL for the money. you even stated that in your so called news report. the dolphins don’t take all the fish in that ocean! I wonder how many dolphins have saved a REAL fisherman’s life?? these so called fishermen are NOT fishermen, they are KILLERS. the world is watching and our intent is to stop this for good!! you’re stealing dolphins from the oceans FORCING them into that cove and then slaughtering. and those that are “pretty” , they get to live a life in a TANK! and yes, we are going after the aquariums that pay for taiji killers to do what they do. to even THINK about saying this is ok is as inhumane as the killers themselves. the world is watching now, we are NOT going away until this ends for GOOD! shame on you for even posting this, shame on the leaders of japan for allowing it to happen, and if this doesn’t end soon..it will be on the WHOLE country of JAPAN! #tweet4taiji #shuttaijidown! we are not going to stop! this WILL end, for good!

Ibrahim Ahmad

They drown and stick metal sharp spikes the dolphins? Isn’t that call fishing? You take out the fish from the net and let them drawn (instead of water, it’s air) then some are kept alive for freshness then are butchered in front of the client. As long as people eat and sell meat legally why should anyone focus on this 200 people? While there are still people hunting wild animals for food and cold hard cash, LEGALLY.

cewing2301

here’s one way those killers could make money. take their boats out with sightseers and tour the dolphins. there are dolphin tours all around the coastal lines. but wait??? they cant make as much money as they would selling them now could they? and if this is so ok? why are they mislabeling the dolphin meat? like for whale or tuna? Italy is on to you guys now also, they checked their last shipment labeled “tuna” found out it’s DOLPHIN..highly toxic DOLPHIN!

Sam Duncombe

so where did my comment go? your article is lacking information – drive hunts are fueled by the captivity industry driving spikes into their heads and plugging the hole with a wooden stake is not “humane” by ANY standards it takes them 1/2 hr to die while their bodies hemorrhage – these animals – ANY animal must not be treated as a commodity

Mike O’Brien

So your case is that you don’t like it so they should stop.

“On Dolphin meat tested the Dolphins in Taiji are way above the legal
limit of Mercury, so not only killing dolphins they are killing their
own people slowly.”

And actually that study found that SOME samples were above the limit. It also said that despite that, no negative effects were found among people in Taiji who regularly ate dolphin meat. I guess you must have missed that part of the study.

JimLight

There are officials, scientists, and doctors within Japan who warn of the health risks of eating dolphin and whale meat. It is not just outsiders.

Mike O’Brien

And again you respond to something I never said.

I know there are ‘officials, scientists, and doctors within Japan who warn of the health risks of eating dolphin and whale meat’. I also know that there are “officials, scientists, and doctors within the US who warn of the health risks of using tobacco’ yet people are still allowed to use tobacco if they want to. Officials, scientists, and doctors within many countries also warn of the health risks of eating lots of kinds of seafood, since virtually all of it has some level of mercury. In fact in many countries the government health officials publish guidelines to limit consumption of various species, just like Japan does for dolphin and whale meat.

But thanks for telling me something I knew and really has no bearing for someone who would be against killing cetaceans no matter what.

JimLight

Read your own posts – “no negative effects were found among people in Taiji who regularly ate dolphin meat.”

There are medical professionals in and out of Japan who disagree with that statement. My statement directly addressed the topic and countered your conclusive statement.

Mike O’Brien

Many published research papers have dissent. And the dissenters usually respond by conducting research to refute the original paper.

But again, since you have said you would be against killing cetaceans no matter what, why do you insist on posting so many issues that have no bearing on your opposition? It is almost like you don’t trust your own original claim and feel a need to support your statement that needs no support.

JimLight

Not that it is any of your business, I look at many aspects of a topic before I develop my position. I am against the mass killings due to cruelty, inappropriate population management, the impact of the dolphin taking on local populace both economicially and healthwise, and other factors.

You tried to right off another authors concern about the health impacts. I weighed in based on my research.

JimLight

A scientific study in the Faroes revealed high levels of mercury in their children due to consumption of pilot whale meat both passed down through their mother during pregnancy and from the children eating the meat when they were old enough.

As a result of that initial study women of child bearing age and children substantially reduced whale meat consumption. While the levels of mercury are down, the health impacts to those exposed continue especially impacts to their central nervous system.. Faroese studies have linked the higher mercury exposure to increased incidence of Parkinson’s disease in the Faroe Islands compared to other populations who do not consume whale meat.

Mike O’Brien

Thrilling!

And this has what to do with Taiji? Because as the facts show, the study of mercury in the dolphins and people of Taiji found that even people with higher levels of mercury have no detectable affects. No higher level of Parkinson’s, no neurological impairments, no symptoms of any problems from mercury.

JimLight

The results and methods of the Taiji study have been critically challenged even by other Japanese. The Mercury levels in both the people and pilot whale meat in the Faroe study was similar.

Mike O’Brien

So one researcher puts his name and reputation on the line by publishing his study. And then another researcher ‘who requested anonymity’ comments negatively on the study.

Guess which one has the credibility?

Oh wait he claims he is afraid of intimidation and loss of funding. Poor baby. I bet all the non-Japanese medical researchers must be afraid that Japan will intimidate them and withdraw their funding too.

JimLight

That’s just one quote from a Japanese paper that shows the level of intimidation internal to Japan -experienced by both the medical/research community and the newspaper. Researchers and medical professionals question the methodology used in the study to determine nervous system affects. The method used is not the method used on similar studies on the impacts of mercury ingestion and that therefore the report’s conclusions do not accurately reflect the true health impact to the residents of Taiji.

Mike O’Brien

No you BELIEVE they will make more yen taking tourists to see the dolphins. And there are already 5 companies in the Taiji area who take tourist to see the live dolphins. Just how many companies and how many workers can be supported by dolphin tours?

Mike O’Brien

“Do you know that dolphins are angels.” Do you know you have mental problems?

Jason Economides

Really Mike? Does she? How do you know that? There may be some generalisations in Ana’s comment, but I think the majority of us understand the intent of her comments. However, I believe you have not seen her Doctor’s notes, so can’t comment on her mental status as fact (seeing as you are someone who LOVES people to talk about facts).

Jimbo

What a pathetic attempt to justify the massacre of intelligent mammals. We all have to change at some point in our lives. This IS NOT tradition. This is nothing less than a barbaric and useless waste or precious life. I will boycott all Japanese products and not give a dime to any possible disaster, be in earthquake or tsunami, until they cease these horrific events.

Mike O’Brien

Are you going to boycott all the Western countries that massacre intelligent mammals like pigs? Or are you just going to boycott the Asian countries?

Many of the comments here are cultural imperialism of the lowest order. We kill all sorts of creatures for our food, some of which the Japanese would never consider killing. The eating of domesticated animals is relatively recent in Japan, and there are many that we eat regularly, that they would never eat. Is there a difference in value between one life form and another? Dolphins are not just the cute, benign creatures we remember from Flipper or the trained performers of the aquariums. They can also be quite ruthless and are known to attack and murder each other. Life lives on life. Get over it.

JimLight

Is there a “high order” of cultural imperialism? What might that be? You totally neglect the brutality and cruelty of the capture and kill methodologies. The method the Japanese use to kill the dolphins would be illegal to use on their own cattle.

Whirled Peas

Well, I’d agree if Taiji were turned into a dolphin tours-type
enterprise it would attract tourists because it’s gotten so much press
already. Plus, tourists would feel they were supporting a good cause.
And that is good news that Mr. Ishii had the skills to transition to a
lucrative new vocation. Maybe he will serve as an inspiration to other
communities– though he might not want the competition.

That said, the ability to transition from an agricultural-type job to a
highly customer-service job is not a given for everyone. And you need
capital and insurance and supplies and equipment to start and run such
an enterprise. And if the tour included a narrative or even a ticket booth
you’d also have to hire people who spoke foreign languages: English,
French, Spanish, Chinese to name a few or have those plug in headphones
that has a standard spiel in many languages. Remember these fisherfolks speak limited English! So who’s willing to provide the seed money for this
enterprise, as well as the management consultation and training to
ensure a profit???.

The government of JPN is quite overwhelmed with dealing with the clean up of Fukushima; and the livelihoods of the evacuees. I’m fairly certain the livelihoods of the Taiji fishermen would not be a priority right now!

Another small thing, the Taiji fisherman are no more stubborn, proud, or greedy than people in other professions. They just don’t agree with you or don’t want to change their way of life. They are acting, not out of stubbornness, but out of perceived self-preservation — which is typically human. And they are no more greedy than a person who makes his/her living as a mechanic, or nurse, or crab fisherman, or nurseryman. In this world you have to work to make a living, unless you are independently wealthy or have a patron or parents who are supporting you. I’m not sure you can convince the fishermen themselves that what they are doing is wrong, but you may be able to reduce the demand for such a trade as someone else suggested (e.g. no more captive dolphins) and put a damper on the demand for dolphin meat. (I myself avoid sea animals at the top of the food chain due to pollutants — I’ve even given up my beloved swordfish steak!) Then too the angle of transitioning Taiji to other enterprises is interesting but highly complex and will require advocates and supporters of the community who are Japanese or at least can speak good Japanese and relate to the people.

Ibrahim Ahmad

As long as human sale and eat meat from a living thing legally. I say they have every right to eat or sell dolphins.

If you say dolphins are different from other animals because they are cleverer than other animals, in other words, stupid animal can be kill and smart animal should be save, it’s like you are corrupted by our modern system. The less intelligent live on the streets while the clever being live on a high rise building condominium.

I bet you watch too many disney-like film to have an extra care for this certain species. To tell you the truth, there are more dolphins killing people than saving them. And they rape each other by force. That’s what the “whitewash media” left that tiny little detail. This is not “Disney on earth” for god sake, this is reality! They need to feed their family and due to the push of competitive market they just have to do what they know.

DON’T BE IGNORANT!

JimLight

There is only one documented case of a free dolphin killing a human. And that was a drunk man who beat one in shallow water. The dolphin rammed him and he died from the ramming.

There are no documented cases of Orca’s killing humans in the wild. There is one case where a surfer was bitten in the foot. One boy got bumped by one when swimming in the ocean but he was not injured.

There is the well documented case of a wild pilot whale pulling a photographer underwater by her foot. She survived and the video footage shows it was not a violent attack, but she is lucky that she did not drown.

If you google dolphin rescues of humans, you will find many recent recorded incidents.

So your statement about dolphins killing people does not seem to be supported by evidence.

I could hurl insults at you for both your opinion and your inaccurate statements, and your apparent acceptance of the cruelty of the kill, but it does not further the debate.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Maybe you should wiki it and do some research. FYI include all the other species of dolphins. Anyway, you got some points there, instead of being hateful and hostile towards those japanese fishermen, why not use those energy work out a way to educate these people to fish with sense of humanity. For all I see there is no more other way of fishing that doesn’t involve hurting them before butchering them, simply because they swim, if they walk on land we can simply just chop off their heads fast and painless. And if you say they cruelly kill these animal by cornering them or netting them, then surely your plate of fish fillets, fish nuggets or tuna in cans have probably faced a much crueler fate. Like I said as long as people eat meat legally I say these people have every rights to eat and sell these animal.

JimLight

Please point me to a source that shows more dolphin attacks than saves. I disagree with your statement on the killing of the dolphins. They could kill them like any land animal once they have them in the shallows. The don’t have to net them in and let them starve for four days before they kill them. They could let the young, the pregnant and the mother/child couples go right away.

These fishermen are callous and cruel. I agree the netting of other creatures is cruel and indiscriminant..

Ibrahim Ahmad

Go to wiki answer and search for dolphins attack 10 per year. While reported dolphins save human are of seldom years example at 2000 there were only two and the next one was at 2003. Just google number of rescue per year by dolphins.

JimLight

Couldn’t find any statistic that showed 10 wild dolphin attacks per year. Found one death of a drunk brazilian who was harassing a dolphin. Found some incidents at captive dolphin human interaction programs. Found one case where an orca bit a surfer and where one bumped a swimmer. But that is it.

As to the selective killing, it is easy. Release females. Take only adult males. A fisherman can easily be trained to tell the difference. Second, limit the amount of time you can keep them netted and unfed. Third, use a killing method that renders them senseless immediately rather than attempting to paralyze them allowing them to slowly suffocate or bleed internally to death.

The Japanese fishermen who do this are barbarically cruel and inhumane.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Why only males? Why not females? Again it’s called fishing they will get confused and hurt themselves even before the fishermen can pick and choose sex & age. And Like you said bring them to shollow waters butcher them probably the best way so far but That would be a bad idea, it’ll make the fishermen expose and vulnerable to attacks since dolphins reacts to threats according to murder records you’ve given.

the japanese fishermen are not barbaric, cruel or inhumane. They are not educated on how to capture and kill dolphins humanely, they were taught by their father this way. You think there is a class anywhere in the world that teached people how to hunt dolphins humanely? No. Clearly the western media meddling with other people’s culture and tradition are being hostile unfairly. Yes it’s culture and tradition the japanese have been fishing dolphins since there have ever been a japanese tradition of fishing, it’s just that they found a new place to hunt.

JimLight

Why save females and not males:

1) if you don’t kill females, you will never kill a pregnant female. 2) If you don’t kill females, you will never orphan a nursing calf. 3) One male can mate with multiple females, but a female can only give birth to one dolphin at a time takes 12 months from conception to birth and nurses a calf for up to two years. A population can suffer more male losses than female.

The fisherman already drag them all to shallow water to kill, so they are at no greater risk. I only cited one known human death caused by a dolphin. The Taiji fishermen are with the dolphins all the time. None of them have been killed.

The Japanese were not taught by their parents, they have only been doing this since 1969. It’s not just western media, it is people around the world. Even the Chinese take issue with the cruel methods of the Japanese dolphin killers.

Ibrahim Ahmad

read this again,
it’s tradition the japanese have been fishing dolphins since
there have ever been a japanese tradition of fishing, it’s just that
they found a new place to hunt which is taiji cove.

the body of dolphins are made of mass muscle, btw dolphins muscle work on land also. dragging them to shore and then select which is male and which is females. God be good if they ever come back to sea without any injuries.

hahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaha! the chinese are the worst! They dont have regulation on how to properly, humanely butcher animals. anything that looks like the japanese are bad they’ll take that chance.

JimLight

Motorboats are hardly a tradition. I am betting many more dolphin survived drive hunts with rowboats. If I believe your statement, the fisherman can get in the water and capture fighting dolphins. They can drag them into the shallows to kill them by stabbing them in their backs multiple times. But somehow they cannot flip the dolphins over for two seconds to find out their sex? They can’t use their eyes to tell how young they are and which are the mothers? Once again, your arguments don’t stand scrutiny.

As to the laughing at the Chinese, these fisherman are just as cruel and inhumane. You can hardly attack the Chinese for the same cruelty the Japanese fisherman perpetrate. And that is the point. Even the people who are lax on cruelty are calling Japanese dolphin killers cruel.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Even a 15 years old boy can learn to stir a motorboat. The means of transportation is irrelevant to the trational culture of dolphin hunting. Example American that go to hunting for ducks claim that what’s he is doing is a traditional thing yet they uses car to go to the hunting ground using cars I doubt that the founding fathers era have any motorized vehicles. Then there is the pilgrims mecca, traditionally people around the world uses the slik road to guide them to the place and some even use ships that still uses sails to maneuver nowadays they uses planes and still retain the value of tradition.

The young part is easy. But the female part, Atleast the pregnant part is fairly near to impossible to insure the safety of the child. As you may observed they did not capture them by collecting them, they capture them by a mass. Which btw is the same as how they fish for blue fin tunas. Except bring them to the cove they can select which will go to captivity and the rest will go to the market. And if you wanna go to the point where the selling to captivity thing is not tradition well be remainded to this, its the thing they fish is what the value of tradition stand.

Meanwhile, the chinese have worser cast of humanity by mass, as you know foreign media are prohibited to document any flaw of tge Chinese government system it’s normal when a journalist try to cover a story then was send to jail. They don’t have freedom of press. So I just laugh away when you actually believe the sicereity of the Chinese government.

Once again, your arguments don’t stands scrutiny.

JimLight

As they drag each dolphin into the shallows they can roll it over for 2 seconds to determine the sex of the dolphin.

As to motorboats, this was in response to the argument of tradition. The “traditional” way of fishing could not have included motor boats. They were not invented yet. I am certain more dolphins and whales escaped a drive kill in row boats than in motorboats. So the impact on a population is far greater. Also killing females and young is more impactful than killing adult males.

I question whose arguments do not stand up to scrutiny.

Ibrahim Ahmad

please take the time to read before replying. i have answered your question sir. and i will insist in my point until you fully understand.

“The means of transportation is irrelevant to the traditional culture of
dolphin hunting. Example American that go to hunting for ducks claim
that what’s he is doing is a traditional thing yet they uses car to go
to the hunting ground using cars I doubt that the founding fathers era
have any motorized vehicles. Then there is the pilgrims mecca,
traditionally people around the world uses the silk road to guide them
to the place and some even use ships that still uses sails to maneuver
but nowadays they uses planes and still retain the value of tradition.”

JimLight

I did read your post before replying, but your analogy was so bad, i did not want to insult you. Americans do not hunt ducks from cars. They don’t use cars to drive ducks in the open. They don’t rope duck feet to a car bumper and tow them to the mass killing spot. The car is inconsequential to the duck hunting.

By contrast, if you take away the motor boats used by Taiji dolphin killers, many more dolphin will survive. The boats are a critical integral tool in the drive kill.

The tradition of the pilgrimage to Mecca does not involve the cruel killing of whole herds of animals.

Your analogies just don’t cut it.

Ibrahim Ahmad

the topic was, this is not tradition. well it is, its just modernized, my opinion is that even though there is motor there added to the tools to catch dolphins but the value of tradition is still there. the value. which again you fail to understand. hunting of dolphins are the way it is.

negotiation instead of mocking will turn that way around. but even if they catch one by one or even choose the gender and age and butcher them humanely, you think the world is going to give in? the love of dolphins are different than the love for other living things, so they are going to continue harassing these people until the tradition is abolish. which it will not happen and shouldn’t happen. just because some people have an extra love for this animal.

JimLight

People are not mocking the dolphin killers of Taiji. People oppose the practice and the cruelty of those who perpetrate it.

You don’t have a Samurai nobility warrior class strolling the streets of Japan. The Japanese people no longer believe their emperor is a god. There is no feudal mercenary class of Ninja warriors and more. Many traditions die as social mores change over time.

This is NOT a tradition of the fishermen of Taiji. They only started the practice in 1969. It is time to put it to an end.

Even the Japanese people recognize the difference of more intelligence animals. Japan has banned medical experiments on primates for example. It is hypocrisy to try to justify the cruel dolphin kills in Taiji.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Again you are racklessly critisizing thier culture and religion. culture can change and criticize but “GOD EMPEROR”? are you seriously dragging this matter into your hard skull debate? you are one rude and arrogant foreigner. The Japanese Media have the right to sue you due to the harassment of religion. hope JDP read this. and recognize your assault on Japanese official religion, the emperor is descendant of Amaterasu which make him related to their God.

JimLight

I am not criticizing any of those practices. I merely showed they are no longer practiced because they are no longer relevant. Regardless of whether you believe your emperor is a god or not, he no longer rules Japanese government.

And not all Japanese seem to agree with you. Here is just one of many examples:

“I was educated by Japanese nationalism that Japan is the nation of God. All Japanese believed that the Emperor was God. Finally, the real God helped us to realize that this wasn’t true. America and some western countries proved that by defeating us in WWII.” – Katumi Kitazawa; Professor Emeritus of Linguistics at Shinshu University (Nagano).

Perhaps you should sue him.

Mike O’Brien

“their criminal government”

Yeah that attitude is really going to improve the situation.

Oh and please find me a government that doesn’t spend tax money for questionable purposes.

Laurie Hertzler

No one needs to make a living by harming living creatures in this terrible way. The people of Taiji can find much better ways to make a good living. The cove is beautiful when it is blue, and could be a wonderful resort and a safe haven for dolphins and whales. People from all nations will benefit from being compassionate to animals and eating a diet based on vegetables, fruits, and grains. Dolphin meat is toxic with mercury and can cause serious harm to Japanese children. It’s long past time to put a stop to the killing and capture of dolphins and whales, everywhere.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Yeah except the fact that the people there don’t have even a diploma in tourism. So yay for taiji, to bad for the villagers?

JimLight

You’ve got to be kidding. Plenty of people in the tourist industry without a degree. If they really need someone with a degree to help them, there are plenty of consultants.

Ibrahim Ahmad

In asia they pay these people peanuts wages. And do you really think they know how to speak English? A non english speaking tourist industry is a death sentence for the fishermen of taijin.

JimLight

Not buying it. There must be plenty of english speaking japanese at their whale museum in Taiji.

Ashlyn

That’s not always the case. In a small town like Taiji, it’s unlikely to have any fluent english speakers at a museum.

JimLight

Their signs are in english… someone is translating for them….. This is not a huge barrier.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Yeah just few. How about the rest? Wait at the back of the museum until closing time? So they can eat leftovers for the rest of their live?

JimLight

Not everyone in the entertainment industry speaks English. I have been to many resorts where only some of the staff spoke english. Where there is a will there is a way.

Ibrahim Ahmad

japan have the population of more than 100million people why would they hire local non-English speaking fishermen? and most of them are old people, why hire old when you can get younger staff?

building a resort on the cove can destroy the marine natural habitat area, this will cause not just the dolphins home but also of other much more important and if not, endangered species habitat to be dismembered.

JimLight

Where there is a will there is a way. Building a resort “can destroy the marine natural habitat area”, but stringing up nets, driving in hundreds of panicked dolphins, running two stroke motors all over shallow waters, dragging fighting dolphins to the shallows, building tarps to hide the carnage, putting up fences and signs to hide the actions from cameras, building captive cetacean pens, and building a dolphinarium do not? Your argument does not hold water.

Ibrahim Ahmad

It’s just a group of dolphins, it’s not the whole population of dolphins that they drag in to the cove. Get your facts right. It’s probably just less than a percentage of the whole population the the whole of japan’s territorial sea it will not effect the eco-system of the sea by mass.

Fyi, marine parks are everywhere in taiji. this discussion has ended.

JimLight

Get your facts right. A resort can be built without “destroying the marine natural habitat area”. It has been done elsewhere.

Ibrahim Ahmad

have you ever seen a resort being built? or you seen a resort already made? and have the whole Eco-system still intact? believe me, no matter how careful you built a resort the effect is still devastating. i have seen Sentosa island being built and its horrifying, the level of devastation on the marine Eco-system. the cement waste, debris and dust coming from construction side, the sound pollution, the reconstruction of sea bed to sustain the building integrate, the extension of necessary land (dumping of sand onto the sea), you didn’t see this thought have you? they already have resorts, adding more will just cause the effect of environmental harming to rise. there is a lot of other animal sea creature japan have to look after and of course conserving the habitat of the wild sea animal is one of the priorities.

JimLight

No I have thought of this. I have seen multiple resorts built. Here in California they have to submit an environmental analysis and adhere to strict building requirements to prevent and minimize impact to the coastal waters.

I sincerely doubt building a resort, a one time event, will have more impact than the netting, the sea pens, the tarp structures, all the ugly fencing, the signs, the outboard motors, the diesel engines, the bottom paint, the clanging of steel pipes, the blood of regular drive kills for multiple drive kills per week for multiple months per year every year. And that is without measuring the impact of killing significant portions of the genetic diversity of multiple types of whale and dolphin.

Ibrahim Ahmad

i can tell you this. the blood of dolphins have the mineral that can feed the sea plants with nutrition, but that’s not the point. the cruelty i agree to stop, but hostile and giving the taiji fishermen a bad reputation and evil look have to stop. its one sided its not fair.

JimLight

Dumping masses of blood into a body of water is not environmentally sound.

The fishermen’s cruelty is what gives them their bad reputation. The protest just exposes the barbaric practice to the world.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Yeah protest, no so. a protest is only stronger if the local understand the situation and follow the idea. if not it’s called suppression of another race. the bad reputation is due to the ignorant facts that was produce to gain popularity. the people of japan don’t see them as cruel fishermen but at this extension they are heroes to the Japanese to stand against the wave and criticism of the world is pretty amazing, and this idea came from the aggression of the COVE movie and western media attacking taiji fishermen. they literally made these people into heroes. And i just realized the level of respect these fishermen got from the people of japan. All this years western people have always been meddling with Japanese affair since The American force open japan to the world, these Japanese fishermen have become their national icon against suppression of western media. i don’t know why I’m writing this to you but i am going to make an article about this. thank you for enlightening me, sincerely. thank you this is not sarcasm.

JimLight

Please tell me which of the facts that have been posted here are inaccurate. No one here is trying to suppress the Japanese people. It is a protest against cruel dolphin kills. The same people protest the grind in the Faeroe Islands. So it is the cruelty that is protested not the people of Japan. You twist the facts and refuse to face the whole truth.

There is no honor in cruelty. You denigrate the great people of Japan by stating that they respect and honor this cruelty. The people of the US and other nations commenting here are not against Japan and its people. They are against cruelty. And the evidence clearly shows that. You just refuse to accept the facts.

It’s true that capturing dolphins isn’t absolutely necessary to the fishermen. Because of that, this could be ended. It’s just that the people who practice this probably will be as receptive to your ideas regarding dolphin rights as you are to their justifications regarding killing dolphins (meaning that they won’t listen to you if you totally oppose them).

Instead of using dolphins for food/show/fertilizer, they could conduct tours of them in their natural habitat. I’m sure that will be thrilling for everyone.

What’s important is that both ends listen to each other. To them, animal activists might seem very pushy and one-sided, and even violent at some times. If you want to persuade someone to willingly take action, then that’s not a very good way to present yourself.

^The link above shows that many of the visitors who wrote in Japanese (most likely Japanese tourists to Taiji) enjoyed the Taiji Whale Museum because they were able to swim with dolphins/whales, pet dolphins/whales, etc. It is evident that they don’t think that the concept of captive dolphins is wrong.

Maybe it is because they don’t know about the process of capturing dolphins. Most people just see cute dolphins doing tricks and getting rewards just like dogs do. Or maybe some of them do know how it works, but accept it as part of having fun dolphin shows.

If you want your opinions to matter to them, you’ve got to stop shedding bad light on them every chance you get. Few people like seeing a red cove and dead dolphins. So, move on, and please put your energy to good use by presenting yourself as a friend and not an enemy if this is really what you want, because it seems like people just enjoy getting overwrought with emotion but don’t realize that the fishermen wouldn’t consider what they are saying if they’re constantly insulting them.

If any of you guys have the ability to see the fishermen that kill dolphins as fellow human beings and are willing to work with them, please propose an alternative plan. Visit Taiji yourself and see what life is like there, and make a specific plan to stop the dolphin killing instead of just saying that the fishermen could find other professions. If nobody offers career paths or whatever solution you have that prove better to the fishermen, then they are probably going to continue what they are doing.

Mike O’Brien

“maybe richest country on the planet”

Your joking, right?

Christian Bauer

Japan has one of the highest per capita GDPs worldwide.

Mike O’Brien

No they don’t.

They are currently rated about 36th. Their public debt as a % of GDP is rated the worst in the world and their government debt as a % of GDP is the 2nd worst, only exceeded by Greece. Their massive increase in imports of fossil fuel since shutting down their nuclear plants has given them an abysmal trade deficit.

They are no longer a rich country. They are at best comfortably middle-class. But with their negative population growth and aging population, if they don’t fix their trade deficit and pay down their debt they face a worsening economy for years to come.

JimLight

And the cruel drive kills will fix all that? That is really your justification?

Mike O’Brien

Learn to read.

Where in my comment do I say it is justification for anything? Nowhere. So nice strawman.

Maybe you need to learn what context means? Try reading the comment I was responding to, it might minimize you making yourself look foolish.

JimLight

The article and comment were about the dolphin drive kill. The comment you responded to said Japanese people are well off so they don’t need drive kills. You commented that Japan was not one of the richest nations. So I asked if you think that justifies the drive kills. Rather than answer the question you went on the attack.

I fully understand the context. However, what I fail to see is why you would quibble about Japanese economic status if you did not intend to tie it back somehow to original comment on dolphin drive kills.

Mike O’Brien

Well I agree that you have failed. I disagree that you understand the context. From your own response you believe that I should tie Japanese economic status back to dolphin drive kills but apparently you don’t believe that the poster that I responded to should have to tie his comment about Japanese economic status to the dolphin drive kills. Oh, that’s right. It is because you are a hypocrite and only believe people who don’t agree with you need to meet your arbitrary rules.

Based on your own claim, a normal person would realize that my comment was an attempt to get the commenter I was responding to to tie his incorrect statement to the topic of the article. But despite your claim, you completely missed that although it exactly mirrors your whining about my comment.

JimLight

I’m sorry you have trouble tracking the debate you tried to contribute to. The original comment restated was that the Japanese economy is doing well so they don’t have to rely on drive kills. You quibbled and said Japan is middle class. So I asked if that meant you think it justifies drive kills (you remember, the whole topic of this article). Rather than answer the very simple question, which pertained directly to the original commenter’s thesis and the article, you go on a non-sequiter ad hominem tirade – twice now…. seemingly your repeated tactic when you can’t add to the real debate based on others you call names without supporting your position.

So I ask again in very simple terms: since you claim the Japanese nation is middle class, do you think that justify the cruel drive kills?

Mike O’Brien

Well actually neither of my responses contained ad hominems. Is that another term that you don’t understand?

But to answer your irrelevant question so you can get your panties untwisted, the economic status of Japan has absolutely nothing to do with justify or not justifying drive hunts, cruel or not. Just like all your whining has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, because as you have plainly said you would not support cetacean hunting no matter what. So all the nits you keep picking and all your quibbling is just trolling for arguments since you have claimed that none of it has any effect on your position.

JimLight

As I thought. You take the debate off on a tangent that does not address the original statement. It is an old tactic in debate. Divert attention from the real argument. Ad hominem attacks are fallacious attacks on a person that have nothing to do with the issue being discussed. Ad hominem attacks are a repeating theme in your comments to almost every commentor you comment to.

No whining here. Just the facts.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Racist! Or rather spiciest. How about the other animal we hunt and eat like wild tuna, salmons, sardines they are creations of the heavens too. Then again you speak of insult for tradition, roots of tradition are religion or religion’s roots are tradition.

Ibrahim Ahmad

I support you! Yeah stupid animal deserve to die and eaten or kept for recreation. Give way for the dolphins to create a civilisation and a functioning government so there be two intelligent being on the plant. Though one of the intelligent specie already cause destruction and promote global warming to quicken but it’s ok we are intelligent creatures we deserve to be much superior than any other stupid breathing being on earth. Yeah you go girl!

Ibrahim Ahmad

Stop eating meat if you want to help any slaughtering of animals, I mean don’t be bias. That’s not fair.

Calli

I don’t! So may I complain now? It’s not just about barbaric killing, it’s also about circus tricks of captives in shallow pools. But I assume I am barking up the wrong tree.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Just that these japanese fishermen are treated like criminals, just because most people treat dolphins as some kind of cute animal. The fact that they have the intelligent to think doesn’t mean they should have a special place in society, if capturing of dolphins for its meat or for captivity is viewed as a criminal act, other animal should have the same privilege, last time I check even livestock animal and zoo animal have feelings and can be traumatized. I have noting against these dolphins it’s just the hostility the japanese fishermen received from foreign media, the criticism didn’t stop there, they intend to attack japan and the japanese as a whole which is truly unfair and the point of view that the world has on this certain animal show that compassion of living things are divided to categories, these hostile people are not doing the terrible protest it’s because for them dolphins are like a Disney character of their childhood or a pet,

JimLight

There is a huge element of hypocrisy in the Japanese government position. The Japanese consume significantly more beef, chicken and pork than dolphin. And they require these animals to be killed in a humane manner that renders them senseless immediately. They have outlawed experiments with primates due to cruelty, but they defend this cruelty using the flimsy excuse of tradition.

Ibrahim Ahmad

then you should make a letter with that statement. it sound legitimate enough to me. I’ll back you up. I’m sure they’ll make a new regulation regarding this very crucial matter. address it to mr.Shinzo Abe. also include the international threats like the world will not be in japan side if difficulties hit japan in the near future,and boycotts of Japanese goods is unavoidable prior to this letter if the Japanese government does not comply. That will shake the Japanese inevitable!

I STRONGLY RECOMMEND THIS ACTION!

JimLight

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates

JimLight

When you resort to insults and name calling you have lost the debate.

Ibrahim Ahmad

HAHAHA! this is not an insult this is merely sarcasm. unless you cant handle sarcasm or you are oblivion to sarcasm then it’s an insult.

say whatever you want but the Japanese government have to make an effort to convince the fishermen, since the movie came out the Japanese government is frozen to make any decision that might help the dolphins. the media assault have cause anger within the Japanese society. if the Japanese government side the the Cove movement, then why is it called the “Japanese Government”. naturally they’ll side the Japanese people.

the movie is the BIGGEST mistake western media made it made things worst than before. DISRESPECT!

Mike O’Brien

Yeah. I mean look how the US gave up catching thousands of crabs every year, oh wait they didn’t. Well how about how Canada stop seal hunting, oh wait they didn’t.

JimLight

Go the articles on Canadian seal hunts you will see plenty of negative comments. This article is about dolphin.

Mike O’Brien

Yeah that’s the fact, because Mari says so, you wankers.

Mike O’Brien

Of course it sounds like a pretty easy turnkey start-up business to you. Because it isn’t your livelihood that would be affected.

Running a tour boat isn’t as simple as having a boat. There are a whole slew of skills, very different than those of a fisherman, that are required. And just how many tour boats do you think can be supported? How long do you think it would take to get people coming for the tours and how do they support themselves until the tourists start coming?

And what about the 5 companies that already run dolphin/whale watching boats in the Taiji area? Can more tours be supported? Will tours employ the same number of people as the dolphin hunts do?

Carla French

The slaughter & taking of captives isn’t their only means of support. They fish year round. Ending the slaughter & taking of captives would not end their means of supporting their livelihood.

Those 5 companies that operate dolphin & whale watching excursions only have 1 boat each so with growth of this industry taking over & with collaborative efforts of all the vessels actively sharing the location of the pods there is plenty of room for more whale watching vessels to enter this growing source of income.

When the fishermen were asked what would they do if the dolphin & whale hunts were outlawed, they said they would return to fishing for lobster, crab and bonito. Union members are also involved in many businesses. They also skin dive for abalones, ormers, turban shells and they single hook tuna larvae to sell to tuna farmers.

It would be a tremendous benefit for Taiji to embrace eco-tourism. There are many attractions there, such as the beautiful scenic ocean, dramatic rugged coast, and imposing mountains that offer recreational opportunities including hiking, nature watching, camping, fishing and boating. The area also boasts some of the most historic and beautiful religious shrines and temples in Japan.

Far more people in Taiji work for the tourist industry than in the dolphin-killing industry and would benefit enormously from positive publicity for their town as a tourist destination.

Several groups have offered their help with support & promotion to help with the transition from killing & capturing dolphins & whales to preserving and watching them.

As for training Mr. Ishii, who used to kill dolphins but now runs successful dolphin- and whale-watching cruises on his boat is offering to share his expertise in transitioning from dolphin killing to running dolphin & whale watching enterprises. He is meeting with the union this week.

One of the problems is that the Taiji fishermen want their cake & eat it too. They want to continue the slaughter & taking of captives & offer whale watching tours at the same time.

As you & I know these fishermen have the business skills to make the transition, they are highly intelligent but they won’t until they are made to stop slaughtering & taking captives for sale and forced to find additional new traditions.

Colleen Phillips

Please, no one reply to Mike O’Brien, he is just trying to get attention and is not really interested in the discussion, just in arguing. Unfortunately, there are many such ‘personalities’ on fb. Ignore.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Arguing is discussing, just because he is in the japanese side he is arguing? He have some right point there. Most people blame these fishermen because of the slaughter of dolphins and have no tolerance on the fishermen side.

1) the cove is wrong to assume that the tradition starts 60 years ago, japanese have been hunting dolphins for more than a thousand years if not ever since the civilization of japan ever started. It’s just that taiji cove is a new spot.

2) there is no better way to capture dolphins in a much humanely way possible since they swim not walk on land. If they walk on land, we can just beheaded them fast and pain free.

3)the dolphins are not an endanger species.

4) these japanese fishermen should not be blame, simple because they don’t have the same compassion like you western

JimLight

1) Using motorboats and driving them by banging poles is hardly “traditional”. I am sure far more dolphins and whales escaped in the days of row boats.

2) There are many ways to reduce the cruelty. First they don’t have to trap and starve the dolphins for days. Second they could release the young and their mothers right away. Third, once they drag the dolphins to knee deep water I am certain they could kill them more humanely than multiple stabs to their spinal cards and then leaving them to die slowly from suffocation or internal bleeding.

3) No culture should tolerate animal cruelty. I do not call them criminals, i call them cruel and inhumane.

I am against cruelty no matter the species. This news article focuses on dolphins. It is logical to expect the comments to address dolphin kills.

Ibrahim Ahmad

It’s the world’s fault that they didn’t educate these fishermen to catch dolphins in a much humanely way as possible.

JimLight

Not the world’s responsibility. The Japanese should take care of their own house. I understand it is an embarrassment that the world is pointing this atrocity out to the people of Japan. The people and government of Japan can solve it very quickly if they have the will. it is not rocket science.

Ibrahim Ahmad

its ok to meddle with other people’s business, since we are all human and we are all in the cause of humanity, but then again you cant read their minds. Can you? they are just smiling because they know the cameramen cant do nothing. and the idea that western media are attacking them its only natural to taunt your enemy.

And yes if the world wants this people to change then the world should take the effort to change them, peacefully and maturely. not mocking them with a movie that they cant understand.

JimLight

I personally could never smile, laugh and joke while cruelly taking another creature’s life.

Ibrahim Ahmad

of course you can’t, have you ever being taunted by a foreigner media? that their goal is to crush u?

You are one closed minded jerk.

JimLight

I think every one of us has been taunted at some point in our life. Being taunted is no excuse for cruelty or laughing at the suffering of any animal.

No one’s goal is to “crush” the fisherman in Taiji. The objective is to stop cruelty to the dolphins. I think most would respect the dolphin killers if they stopped their drive hunts, capture and kill of cetaceans.

It seems you are the close minded one. “Once the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.” – Socrates

Ibrahim Ahmad

Slander? You call it slander or whatever i called it facts of your personality.

Have you seen the Cove? did they interact with the Japanese fishermen or negotiate with any Japanese official or make any understanding of what is happening other than showing violent images that degraded the image of the fishermen?

JimLight

You don’t know me. You have no clue as to my personality. You call names because you have run out of reasonable arguments to defend the cruelty of the dolphin kills.

I did see the cove, but it appears you did not. They did try to interact with government officials and the fishermen. But they reacted the same as you. Refusing to listen and instead hiding behind tarps, ruining Taiji’s natural beauty with fences, and sending in a huge police force who spy on protestors every move.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Oh I have seen it and all they do is destroying the image of japan by “conspiracy theory” and publicly and internationally humiliate a Japanese officer. And not just that they didn’t make any effort get any Japanese involve in this “ocean twelve” mission. And for that they mislead the Japanese officer into thinking these foreigner are here for their own benefit, they don’t care about the greater good of Japan and let alone respect the Japanese culture. THIS Ordeal can be more effective if they got a Japanese group involve in this matter where the Japanese group can lead this Cove mission with acceptable manner and avoid translation error. Because as you know the Japanese language is very complicated, one wrong word or even the pronunciation can lead to a different meaning and also may seem to be rude.

Colleen Phillips

Arguing is putting forward views with no justification whatsoever, discussing it allowing views from both sides, with justification or research. Your point 1 – incorrect, Japanese have been hunting WHALES for 100s of years, dolphin since 1969, admitted by them.
Point 2 – you have to be kidding me! Point 3 – not yet but in a few years at this rate – why wait until they are endangered? Point 4 – ‘you Western people’ – is your discussion about dolphin or East vs West? This is another ‘discussion’ entirely.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Source: CNN
Title: Japan defends dolphin hunting at Taiji Cove.
By Keiko Nishinaka
Well, do you believe many Japanese eat dolphins? No!! I have never eaten
them. I have never seen any restaurants where dolphin’s dishes are served in
Japan. I have never seen food shops where dolphin’s meat are sold in Japan. I
have never met Japanese people who have ever eaten dolphins although I live
near
Wakayama-prefecture and I have been there some times. I think only a few people
in Taoshicho eat dolphins. For almost all Japanese, dolphins are not food and
same as cats, dogs and other pets.
You might think I was for eating dohphins because of the last comment of
mine. Actually, I am not for it, and, I am not against it. I mean, for me,
dolphins are same as other animals. so, people who want to eat dolphins eat
them
as they like. If you don’t want it, please don’t eat.
But, the U.S. ambossodor, Ms. Caroline Kennedy mentioned it. She
said, your tradition is inhumane, USG opposes drive hunt fisheries. I can’t
stand this. I can’t understand why we can’t fish dolphins inspite it’s ok to
eat other animals. We have different cultures between your country and our
country. Why do we have to obey your culture? There is only one culture
admitted in this world? We have to respect each other’s culture. Don’t you
think?
I can stand if you say something about our culture for your opinion. But,
I can’t stand USG meddle in our culture. I don’t understand why always USG
meddle in our private affairs.
Those who believe in Allah are prohibited from eating pork. If they said,
don’t eat pig. Can you stop eating pork? The way of thinking is different.
There are some Islamic children in a kindergarten where my children go. The
kindergarten serves special lunch excepted food which Islamic people can’t eat.
The kindergarten make other dishes thinking nutritional balance for free
because we respect their culture.
I really don’t want you to interfere in our(Taishicho’s) tradition as
Japanese. I feel those kinds of matter are not your business.
Also, I want you to know there were some make ups in the movie, The Cove.
We have done dolphins fishing since stone age. Japanese had not eaten meat
before Americans came. Due to the Peace Treaty between Japan and United States
in 1854, the Japanese isolation policy that had lasted for 200 years was
abolished. Then, your culture came into our country and we got to eat meat. The meat of whales and doiphins have been a primary source of protein for us
because we had not eaten meat. Now, almost all Japanese don’t eat dolphins.
Well, I hope even some of you understand our way of thinking.

JimLight

It’s not just the US Government. Other nations have expressed their opposition as have individuals around the world. Many of our cultures had traditions that we abandoned because they were cruel and no longer necessary. Since consumption of dolphin meat is no longer required, why continue the cruelty?

Ibrahim Ahmad

Because they are not educated to kill the dolphins humanely by their trainers. If the world wants this to stop then the world should start educating them a better way to catch and butcher dolphins that is acceptable in terms of humanity.

It’s everyone except the fishermen fault that this happen. The world should make a less aggressive move towards this people so they can have a dialog with them peacefully and have an agreement on how to deal with the dolphins. No make a movie that even they can’t understand and portray them as evil people. While in fact, despite thier lack of love with the dolphins, they are just normal human beings. They dont have devil horns and sharp teeth or eat human flesh. They are as human like you and me. Just lack of understanding the way they butcher the dolphins are inhumane

JimLight

Not buying it. The Japanese need to take ownership and clean their own house. Never said they had devil horns, but it is hard to comprehend how someone could laugh and joke while sticking a rod repeatedly in any animals spine and watching it slowly die from suffocation or internal bleeding.

Ibrahim Ahmad

if the world wants something to change then they make the changes, japan is unwilling because of the aggression of western media. an apology and a dialog with this fishermen should start the negotiation going for a much acceptable method of butchering these dolphins. being rude is a step backward

JimLight

Japanese people and publication are joining the callto stop the cruel practice. It is not the worlds responsibility

Ibrahim Ahmad

how many of them? 30? well those people doesn’t represent the taiji fishermen. nor they respect these people.

JimLight

It is difficult for people of most cultures to accept cruelty much less respect those who live by it.

Ibrahim Ahmad

yeah. and only Not-so-rational people will act violently by criticizing the culture of another society without any background research other than self-beneficial facts.

JimLight

I research lots of history of many cultures. That does not mean I would condone cruelty regardless of history. Most cultures had elements of cruelty in their past. Most of the traditions in most cultures have become extinct. It is time for dolphin drive kills to end. It has no cultural relevance in the modern world.

Ibrahim Ahmad

those are laws and this is tradition. totally different.

JimLight

Not true. These were traditional approaches to differences in religion, religious offerings to the gods, treatment of enemies, fear of the supernatural, and punishment of religious and/or societal wrongs. As social mores advanced and changed, the practices were ended…sometimes they were prohibited by laws derived from these changed mores – to force those who were slow in accepting the changes into compliance.

Ibrahim Ahmad

japanese fishermen in taiji are treated like criminals, just because most people
treat dolphins as some kind of cute animal. The fact that they have the
intelligent to think doesn’t mean they should have a special place in
society, if capturing of dolphins for its meat or for captivity is
viewed as a criminal act, other animal should have the same privilege,
last time I checked even livestock animal and zoo animal have feelings and
can be traumatized. I have noting against these dolphins it’s just the
hostility to the japanese fishermen received from foreign media, the
criticism didn’t stop there, they intend to attack japan and the
japanese as a whole which is truly unfair and the point of view that the
world has on this certain animal show that compassion of living things
are divided to categories, these hostile people are not doing the
terrible protest in the name of humanity, they are doing it because for
them dolphins are like a Disney character of their childhood or a pet. a
shame to all those hateful people.

JimLight

Many people, such as myself, are against the drive kills. The Taiji fishermen are held as cruel and inhumane, not as criminals. Holding any animal without food or water for four days would be deemed cruel. Indiscriminately killing the nursing young, their mothers, and pregnant females is a poor population management approach and is cruel as well. Releasing nursing young without their mothers means a slow, cruel death. Poking a rod through an animal’s body multiple times while trying to paralyze it, then leaving it to slowly die of suffocation or blood loss is cruel. The fishermen compound this perception as they joke and laugh as they go about their cruel deeds.

Several have said the Japanese are respectful and mindful when they take another creature’s life. Unfortunately, the Japanese dolphin killers carrying on this “tradition” of cetacean cruelty seem to have missed this aspect of Japanese culture. Unless you call laughing and joking about an animal you just stabbed in the back is what the Japanese call respectful….

Many of us hold the broader Japanese people responsible for looking the other way to allow a few to continue this cruel practice now that it has been exposed. And many of us hold the Japanese government responsible for their laughable attempts at defending this unnecessary cruelty.

I do not hate the Japanese or the Japanese fishermen. I am appalled at their callousness to the cruelty and inhumanity.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Then make an effort to make the japanese understand the gravity of the situation. First of all japan is not an english speaking country and the cova was not translated, not just in term of language but also in terms of the way they want to reach the japanese people to agree. Common if you see a foreigner mocking your country’s culture and heritage would you immediately be on their side? A less aggressive movie or step should be taken. I see alot of mistake that the cove are trying to do. They are trying to call in westerner to fight for the dolphins instead of trying to make the japanese to stop this activity. Which btw is much more a win-win situation.

Education is stronger, better than aggression. The sea Shephard is as the same as terrorist that attack people because they have a different religion.

JimLight

There has been no aggression. And obviously the Japanese government and dolphin killers of Taiji understand more and more of the world is against this. No one except the Japanese fishermen and the assigned police guard has taken any aggressive action.

The Japanese appear embarrassed by the simple act of filming and showing the world the barbarity of what goes on in the bloody cove of Taiji.

It is now up to the Japanese people to show the world they are not the cruel, inhumane people that would look the other way to this atrocity.

Ibrahim Ahmad

see there you go again. for westerner this embarrassing thing is nothing but a lesson learn, but we Asian have more deep meaning than just the word embarrassment, its like you westerner see freedom as to a meaningful life we see it as a problem something we have to co-operate and make it happen. and we did. but the westerner insensitivity have gone too far. we are willing to learn more of this but if there is aggression, why should anyone listen. for as accusing our tradition without our consultation or even consideration of our feelings is barbaric. the cove is condemned by most Asian that still consider tradition is a part of our daily life.

hurting our traditional image is an aggression because we Asian value our ancestor legacy. we took the effort to accept modernization and westernization, but you westerner keep on the aggression on our point of view and trying to change everything by attacking us physically and morally.

take the time to understand us before such film are to be made, this movie failed to make any sense to the fishermen because of the attacks on their pride. as first impression is an important aspect in everything. now their point of view is that, you attack them, now its time for them to attack you. happily showing the world that they are slaughtering those aggressor’s dolphins. things would have been different if the first step was a face-to-face dialog.

JimLight

I guess most of us disregard the whole “tradition” argument because:

a) the drive kills did not really happen in Taiji until 1969. That would not be a tradition in my eyes.

b) If it were a tradition, it would not have included power boats, which change the whole equation.

c) many traditions have changed because they were bad when graded by current standards, they are no longer needed or relevant, or they are no longer supportable.

For all these reasons, the “tradition” argument falls on deaf ears.

Ibrahim Ahmad

these are my replies, accordingly,

A) it happen all around japan, ever since japan is a country with tradition, taiji is just a new place to hunt.

B) its called innovation, something not rare in japan. it gives them speed and power to catch the dolphins

C) the abolition of tradition is not the Asian way, i condemn such an act, it disregards and mock our ancestor.

But the way can change, the value cant. if the way is applied to lessen the pain of dolphins during butchering, this can be apply to tradition. thus continuing on the hunt of dolphins in a much humanely manner to sustain traditional value.

JimLight

All excuses not reason. Plenty of Japanese traditions have been abandoned because they are no longer acceptable. Time for this one to go the same way.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Excuses for your closed minded westerner ofcourse.

Name one tradition that the Japanese abandon, I bet you can’t.

JimLight

It sounds to me that you are the one being closed minded.

Ninja feudal mercenaries, Samurai nobility class warriors, and god-emperors all Japanese traditions of the past that have been abandoned.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Ninja have no status in the livelihood of the Japanese. they even don’t have any solid evidences of their existence, it’s like myth and legend. and if they do exist there are people who said they are descendant of Ninja clans, and still own a Ninja Dojo in japan, maintaining the way of Ninjitsu.

Samurai nobility still exist but not as part of the government but as part of the Japanese livelihood, yakuza are descendant and the traditional holder of the feudal era of japanese clans and are still respected by the Japanese as the peacekeeper of the territory they hold. the bloodlines are kept in the name of tradition.Then we have the Bushido code of honor, samurai teaching still live in those who practice the code. kendo, kyudo and in many forms of martial arts.

As you can see from the above example they still keep tradition going but in a much modernly manner. it can be revolutionized while keeping the traditional value and respect. same goes to the dolphins problem, instead of mocking them in a movie with a language and a storyline they dont understand other than offended them, make a Japanese awareness movie regarding this matter and hopefully the japanese people and government will recognize their error and revolutionized the current method of dolphins butchery into a much humanely way, and in this way the Japanese may also abolish the catching of dolphins if the awareness movement is Choreograph in a way where no japanese will be offended and make them start listening.

God-emperors still exist as long as shinto temples in japan stand. they are after all descendant of amaterasu. You may offend thier culture but you don’t darn to offend their religion. different from culture. religion is a much more sensitive issue. and if you decide to continue on criticizing or denouncing their religion you are a hypocrite and a very rude foreigner, and you are no better than the terrorist that attack people just because they have a different opinion on religion, the world speak to the freedom of religion. and this is why you are an idiot and a closed minded jerk, you miss the point of this argument and intend to attack the Japanese way of living and rudely speak of their religion without any effort to study the facts and blindly attacking facts that might hurt the people involve. and Shintoism are not just practiced by japanese some people outside japan might also get insulted and hurt by your comment (practice of Shintoism outside japan. Tenrikyo, Konkokyo and Omotokyo)

JimLight

You seem to be in denial. There are some teachings of samurai that still exist. But there is hardly a warrior class of nobility going around killing others and one another . The Japanese people no longer worship their emperor nor does an emperor run the country. The drive killing of dolphins should be in the history books and not practiced with motorboats, starvation, and cruel spinal stabbings.

Your flimsy excuses show how much you are willing to twist facts to defend the barbaric dolphin drives.

Ibrahim Ahmad

ignorant, denial and rude.

Anyway in im defending tradition. my obligation is only to that. the rest can change. the way of killing dolphins can be changed like the way of samurai are respected now. but the tradition of hunting dolphins should and must stay. the fishemen can change their way of killing that i will agree on.

JimLight

Namecalling again. There is no honor in defending or continuing cruelty. And there is no logical mandate to continue the “tradition” of dolphin kills.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Yes there is. Like hunting wild ducks in the USA that’s not necessary, yet to hear any big fuss from the western media except it is celebrated in movies and documentaries for a father and son bonding material or a proud heritage.

Ibrahim Ahmad

it has been a long tradition! ever since tradition have been practiced in japan, they hunt dolphins. the taiji cove is just a new place of fishing.

Marion

An article that wants philosophical, justifying barbarism carried on living beings, highly evolved since addition is targeted dolphins, marine mammals to the degree of awareness and sensitivity that far
exceeds that of many humans due that “If anything is inhumane, our human life is paradoxically inhumane.” I am absolutely not agree with the substance of the article full of misinformation and hypocrisy: the massacre of dolphins are driven by lobbying water parks and entertainment of the captivity, and not by tradition (the dolphins are hunted in Japan since the 70’s, and consumed at the margin!!).

For information: for a dolphin captivity sells $ 60,000, while a dead dolphin for consumption is sold only $ 300 (because of his armored fleshmercury almost undrinkable). Annually, these uprooted from their natural habitat for captive dolphins report more than $ 7 million to the fishermen of Taiji and associated structures, against about $ 50,000 in respect of the brutally slaughtered for their flesh, after days of torture dolphins, intense stress … it is understood that it is not this is a cultural phenomenon, much less a subsistence fishing! The “argument does not hold, you’ll find images below to support my argument.

Man, as well as any other living being, must adapt to the changing conditions of subsistence, in accordance with changes in its environment, whether natural or anthropogenic. We must not forget that it is also the first player in these environmental changes. Historically, fishermen in Taiji had to find a new livelihood when whaling was banned for commercial purposes are just a few decades?? Why
would it be impossible today regarding FISHERY dolphins?? … Because it is largely orchestrated and funded lobbying waterparks? … Because the Japanese government is corrupt in this case? All
of us, whatever our origins and socio-cultural context, we need to change in favor of environmental conditions that are presented to us, the progress of knowledge and realizations that are associated …for killing thousands of dolphins every year necessarily adverse effects on the environment.However,Western and other countries have largely their responsibility in these horrible massacres under greed … and many other issues that also affect the preservation of biodiversity, and the respect for animals.

Anyway
, it is not in Taiji a cultural fact, but a financial motivation that
reaches millions of dollars every year … some pictures about my
supports below. And we absolutely can not speak of a respect for animals that are
killed for their meat as well … stories and images show how these
unscrupulous fishermen have no respect for their prey.
In
many countries whose social , political, health is much less
comfortable than in Japan (3rd world power , as I recall ) … the
people will never kill young / juveniles nor their mothers, because they
respect the cycles biological procreation. This is absolutely not the case of fishermen who kill deliberately small , mothers … whole families ! !

For my part, I fight , and I would not stop to such hypocrisy . And
my dearest wish is that Mother Nature does it reward you , at one time
or another , to all those who have inflicted so much unnecessary
suffering to living beings of his creation , or who look away , by
egocentrism shabby !

Ibrahim Ahmad

It’s no different than the use of your electricity. No matter whereanother where use of electricity killed more then just dolphins since it come from either fossile fuel or nuclear power plants. Both contribute to pollution that suffocates and cause all kind of negative effects on wild animals and the environment. I don’t see you complaining about this? Yet even this effect is common knowledge, it save many lives and gives comfort to people who really dont need it while the rest of the world living things, animals, specially the north pole and south animals lossing their habitat in the name of comfort that most of us dont need.

For you not having the effort to point out, that the way exists on earth is wrong! I say you are just another hypocritic individual.

JimLight

The article is not about power plants. Why would you expect people to protest power plants when the article is about the cruel dolphin kills in Taiji?

Ibrahim Ahmad

so the rest of the animal kingdom let they be domed in the name of our superiority and comfort?

so we choose who to live and who to die?

You love dolphins and eat bacon. that’s hypocrite. they are butchered in a humanely manner you said? in what way is it that killing is humanely manner? they are butchered, murdered in order for our belly to be full. how humanely is that?

not fair right? so back off hypocrite!

JimLight

No, the article is about the cruel killing of dolphins. It is not an article about bacon. You can call the whole world hypocrites, but that does not make it so. You seem to be of the opinion that starving an animal for days and then stabbing multiple times in the spine and then allowing to slowly die by blood loss or suffocation is okay. I think most would call it cruel.

Malcolm J. Brenner

The Japanese fishermen who run over dolphins with their motor boats obviously don’t “love” dolphins. Fortunately they do not represent the Japanese people as a whole. As a Taiji fisherman told dolphin activist Ric O’Barry, “If the Japanese people found out what we are doing here, they’d shut us down.” Fact is, traditions change as civilization makes progress. Slavery and later racial discrimination were “traditional” in the American Deep South, but have been outlawed and largely eliminated. I think the question becomes, why don’t more Japanese people in the general public sector no about this? Does Japan, a progressive nation in many respects, want to look forward or remain mired in past mistakes? The dolphins of Taiji’s waters cannot change their lifestyle, but the fishermen can, and ultimately they will have to, when they have killed the last dolphin, or, more hopefully, when the last dolphin show closes. One way or the other, they are digging their own graves.

Mike O’Brien

The Japanese people have found out what they do in Taiji and it sure doesn’t look like they have shut it down. Maybe Mr Barry needs a better translator?

JimLight

But pressure is growing internal to Japan. And fewer and fewer Japanese are eating dolphin and whale.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Yeah by less than a dozen.

JimLight

People DO protest the Canadian seal kill. People DO protest the whale kills of the Faeroe Islands. This is not an attack on the people of Japan. It is a protest against cruelty.

JimLight

If you read the article, you will find that they are talking about the Faeroe Islands just as I said. The Faroese have their own parliament. Dolphin drive kills are illegal in Denmark.

Whirled Peas

Hm. Now this doesn’t make sense. First, Japan is not the richest country on the plant. In fact Japan has suffered serious economic woes in the recent past: 20 year of a down economy, a “lost generation” of people who were underemployed or unemployed and never realized their potential, severe natural disasters leading to a nuclear disaster that has displaced many people and cost a lot of financial and human resources to deal with. Second, it is rather magical thinking to expect a country to prioritize whatever level of resources it has to assist 200 specific people to transition to a new vocation just because you don’t approve of how they make a living. It would be peachy keen if they did, (manna from heaven) but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Maybe you could start a fundraising campaign.

JimLight

But the Japanese government will take millions out of Fukushima donations from other nations to cover the loss of Antarctic whale hunting. Hmmm….

Whirled Peas

Jim, please stop attempting to perpetuate this myth about Japan using Fukushima DONATIONS for other purposes. it’s as if some activists have desperately latched onto this phoney narrative because they think it makes stronger their case against whaling. It doesn’t. Japan certainly did NOT use other countries’ donations or individual’s donations for other purposes. Donations went to Fukushima and this has been explained many times on these threads. The Japanese government had initially earmarked a pot of Japanese taxpayer money toward Fukushima relief; but they changed their mind and used part of that money toward other purposes. There is a huge difference betw redirecting Japanese taxpayer money and redirecting donations intended for Fukushima victims. One might argue that the government should have gone ahead with its original plan to use the earmarked funds for Fukushima; but it is the prerogative of a government to move its money around as it sees fit and it’s up to the people of that country to object if they see fit. Please, I’m sure you would agree that accuracy is critical when you are building a movement. Otherwise agents of change cannot claim to be any better than the politicians they accuse of lying and cheating.

JimLight

Quibbling. This happens a lot in the US. Example, a state has a $1B budget for public schools. The state starts a lottery and announces the profits must fund schools. People donate thinking they will increase the funding of schools in their state. The lottery generates $0.5B in funds for schools. The public believes the state will now have a $1.5B budget for schools. Instead the state reallocated $0.5B “from the original allotment” to another use. They have a paper trail that shows the lottery money was dedicated to schools, but in reality, the lottery money enabled the state to pay for something other than schools.

It doesn’t matter that the state can show that all the lottery money went to schools. The end result is the schools did not benefit from the lottery revenue…. just like the Fukushima moneys going to subsidize the money losing Antarctic whale kill (oops I mean whale research).

Whirled Peas

No not quibbling. Just insisting on accuracy. You should not equate redirecting earmarked funds from the government treasury with redirecting donations (which the gov’t did not do). They are not identical situations. I suppose it makes the Japanese government look worse by saying
they used donations, but no the donations got to where they were
supposed to go. And it is mere speculation that the reason the Japanese government decided to redirect its own earmarked funds was because
Fukushima already received donations. You are making a huge
unsubstantiated cause and effect assumption. It is best to explain things exactly as they are, not how one would like things to be in order to get more support for a cause.

JimLight

The fact remains that had the Japanese government not redirected funds to whaling, there would be more funds available to address Fukushima. It is a pool of money regardless of the source. And when you take from it for another purpose, the end result is less is spent on Fukushima recovery. Had Japan indicated it was going to redirect Fukushima funds prior to other nations donating, I’d agree with you. But them doing it after the donations were committed is as bad as what happens with lottery money and school funds. The way the Japanese government did it is a shell game and sham. Every government does this, but that doesn’t make it right.

Regardless, you miss my point and we’ve gotten off the topic of the original post. The nation that feels it has excess millions to put into a money losing whale kill and has money to pay for policing the Cove Guardians round the clock, has the funds to stop dolphin drive kills and retrain the 50 fishermen to do something else.

Whirled Peas

No. I haven’t missed your point. I don’t agree with it. And if the thread has gone off-topic it is due to your own insistence that Japan “stole donations,” which is untrue and even libelous.

What you are arguing is that “in effect” the Japanese government stole the Fukushima donations because they reduced the amount of funds the legislature originally allocated to Fukushima victims in that fiscal year. Sorry, that is a simplistic and speculative chain of causation.

By your TORT-uous reasoning one could also claim that “in effect, “the anti-whaling movement stole the donations” because as a result of anti-whaling actions the Japanese government was forced to shift funds to help keep an industry alive that was being threatened at a time when Japan could ill afford any more pressure on its economic system — seeing as so many people and businesses and livelihoods had perished from the disaster.

The Japanese government is keenly aware that the Fukushima victims and the region as a whole will require support and attention over decades. Government support is not a one-shot deal. Fukushima will not be remedied in one fiscal year. The shift in some of the money earmarked in that particular fiscal year is insignificant in comparison to what the Japanese government has and will continue to allocate for Fukushima,

Meanwhile, rest assured that donations were not “stolen” by the government. 🙂 Don’t think me rude if I don’t respond further.

JimLight

It’s hard to blame the anti-whalers when what little the Antarctic “research” whale kills produce goes straight into warehouses due to lack of demand. There is no denying that diverting funds to “research” whaling resulted in less for Fukushima relief. And it still shows that if the Japanese government wished they could easily retrain the cruel Taiji dolphin killers.

JimLight

I never said anything about stealing. But the fact remains that more money would be available for Fukushima victims and cleanup had the government not diverted funds to the Antarctic “research” whaling. And it is laughable that you say the cost was due to anti-whalers… the whale meat the “research” whaling brings home goes straight to a warehouse due to lack of demand. The Japanese government wastes money subsidizing “research” whale kills that the Japanese people don’t even eat…. nice.

Regardless, the frivolous waste of funds demonstrates that if the government of Japan could retrain the cruel dolphin killers of Taiji.

Whirled Peas

Okay if you prefer, you have asserted that JPN “took the donations” and used them for other purposes. Your comment :

— ” … but the Japanese government will TAKE millions out of Fukushima DONATIONS from other nations to cover the losses of the annual Antarctic whale hunting ” — (Boldface mine)

The only thing that is laughable is that you continue to insist that Japanese government’s decision to partially re-direct its own treasury earmark for Fukushima is the equivalent to “taking” the donations countries and individuals gave to JPN. But when your same facile reasoning is applied to the role that the anti-whaling movement had in CAUSING
“losses to the annual Antarctic whale hunt,” which in turn CAUSED the Japanese government to try to mitigate those losses by shifting money within its budget, then you cry foul that one cannot make that connection. But it is YOUR own tortuous reasoning and creative semantics (certainly not mine) that allows one to facilely conclude that the anti-whalers “took” the donations! You see what a stretch that is? I really think it’s just best to drop the “Japanese government took the donations” narrative from the anti-whaling spiel.

JimLight

Quibbling. If you add up what nations donated and what the Japanese initially earmarked for Fukushima relief, you will find that the government reallocated some large portion of it for whaling. Had the nations not donated, would the Japanese government have diverted as much to “research” whaling? Would the nations have donated so much had they known Japan would redirect Fukushima monies to “research” whaling? The same thing happens with US lottery revenues and school funding. It’s not so tortuous to figure out. It is a typical government money shell game – creative financing used by all governments.

The Japanese whale “researchers” lose money because no one will buy the meat. There is already over 5000 tons stored. The fact that Sea Shepherd limits their take is inconsequential. If they took more whales, there would just be more whale meat that no one would buy and the stockpile would just grow. The whale “researchers” would not gain any more revenue. In fact there must be some horrendous cost of stockpiling so much. The lack of whale meat demand is well documented in Japanese press and reports as is the amount of stockpiled whale meat. You seem to have missed that.

Again, back to the subject, the Japanese government certainly has the funds to retrain the cruel Taiji dolphin killers if they want.

JimLight

Your logic is flawed. Last year’s “research” whale kill was low in the Antarctic campaign. Even at that low take, the whale meat just added to the stockpile as there is not enough demand in the Japanese market. If Sea Shepherd were not there the whalers would have killed many more whales, but they wouldn’t have sold anyway. Therefore the Japanese government would have to subsidize the “research” whale kills regardless.

But none of this alters the conclusion that the Japanese government could retrain the cruel whale killers of Taiji. If they can fund money losing “research” whaling, they can fund retraining a few cruel dolphin killers in Taiji.

Colleen Phillips

Masao san, I thank you for your editorial, and I thank you for allowing comments. I would dearly like an investigative reporter in Japan to TRUELY look into the financial aspect of Taiji town. I am certain that you would indeed find that the 200 employees of the Fishing corporation are not earning much, but I am as certain that you will find the there are a handful of people who are making a fortune and do not care much about the rest of the town of Taiji. I think you will find that a lot of money goes through the hands of the Taiji Whale Museum, but does not reach the hands of the town’s folk. I think you will find that there are indeed other ways to make as much money otherwise the rest of Japan would also be ‘dolphin’ killing. Fishing for a living is very different to corporate fishing. Going out of one’s waters, interrupting a migrating species that happens to have the misfortune that their natural instinct takes them past the killing cove of Taiji (sorry, but that is apt) where they are terrorised by non-natural, non-fishing gear, confusing their natural sonar, causing them to leave international water, and be herded by numerous boats (usually 12 go out daily), INTO THE KILLING COVE OF TAIJI. I am very sorry, but this does not fit the definition of ‘traditional fishing in Japan’. Please also have an investigative reporter look into the ‘research’ done by Toshihide Iwasaki of Far Seas Fisheries and Yoshifumi Kai of the Taiji Fisheries Cooperative – a six paragraph ‘research paper’???!!! But in the little research that they did do, they do mention that if the ‘correct place’ (researched as ‘two fists behind the skull’ for certain species, ‘one fist behind the skull’ for another species – you would need a surgical degree with 9 years of study to get this correct) is not found, it will not kill the dolphin within the ‘humane’ time frame. They also DO MENTION that to hammer a ‘bung’ into the pierced spine hole to stem the flow of blood into the water, will lengthen the time of death. I watched a video of one ‘fisherman’ trying this method – he tried at least 4 times to ‘get the right spot’, then with the dolphin still writhingj, he ‘bunged’ the hold to stop the blood flow, and moved on to the next dolphin. I am so sorry, Masao Hasegawa, but if one is looking at both sides of the story, and being aware that the dolphin cannot speak for themselves, then this editorial is lacking some research and is largely one-sided.

Christian Bauer

The damage in international reputation for Japan is enourmous (and completely unnecessary). I don’t think that the 200 fishermen are really an issues here. I suspect that Japan has a general problem adapting to the situation as it is today, as I see similar patterns in dealing with Whale hunting, Fukushima or old war issues.

Ibrahim Ahmad

Thank you for noticing. My credibility is growing per post. As long as ignorant people keep on push themselves that they are on the good side by criticizing a culture and by using aggressive means to change the mind of these fishermen, it’s a wrong move, it will only promotes confrontation instead of negotiation.

I believe the tradition should continue and also i believe less aggression and more input of knowledge into these fishermen will have more effect on the killing method and the control of catching dolphins for the species to survive. First by make a awareness campaigns IN Japanese not make a movie that’s disregards the Japanese way in terms of manner and a language that the public doesn’t understand.

Mike O’Brien

The Japanese are not poaching anything. Minke whales aren’t endangered. The whale sanctuary doesn’t apply to their permit or to them at all. The regulations require them to process the meat.

disqus_3gsmeQwuKi

Mike, I’m curious, what’s your horse in this race?
I check up on this topic periodically because I care about the issue. I disagree with the practice..
I notice you spend an awful lot of time arguing and condoning this objectively cruel practice. Why?
It is one thing to not care whether these animals are slaughtered in the vicious and inhumane manner they are, which you obviously don’t. I find it regrettable people are so callous, but many are, and I suppose it is their/your right to have no empathy for other living beings. But to spend hours and hours making what I consider ethically and morally devoid yet possibly relevant legal statements just makes you reek of, pardon the expression, douchedom..
Everyone knows the real motivation behind these hunts is not tradition, nor food, it is the selling of these captive animals to various “zoos” around the world for large sums of money. That is the real motive. The rest is lip service.

You speak a lot of legalaities, rights, technicalities and so on. I have yet to see you address the moral aspect of this practice.
Where do you stand on the method by which these animals are slaughtered?
Where do you stand on capturing and holding these animals captive for their entire lives in what amounts to fishbowls? Why is this ok or necessary?
Do you simply not care?
thanks.

mack man

disqus_3gsmeQwuKi you can not really reason with O’brien because compassion, empathy, respect, and morality, to people, nature, and governments of the world mean nothing to him. Just think of O’Brien as Joseph Goebbels or Adolf Hitler.

For O’Brien it’s all about, as you say, of legalities, rights, technicalities and so on. He sees the world in black and white.

I would not mind betting he is a corporate whore hired by the Japanese government. Having said that it would be interesting to see what further twisted ideas he spews out, only for everyone’s amusement of course.

Mike O’Brien

Gambling is immoral.

Mike O’Brien

I check up on this topic because I care about the issue. I agree with countries being able to perform legal actions and I disagree with private groups believing they can break the law with impunity.

I don’t address the moral aspect because everyone has different morals making any such discussion a waste of time.

mack man

O’Brien you say the moral aspect is irrelevant, and that is just what I thought you would say. It backs up just what I said in my last post. I am very sure though that you do have an moral opinion, for example the way dolphins are killed. It’s just that you see the legal aspect getting in the way of your real opinion. How about stop thinking like a scum bag lawyer and show some empathy and compassion?

Mike O’Brien

So you say that morals are absolute and everyone has the same morals? Yeah that is just what I thought you would say.

“Do you just say “Oh well that is the law so it must be right”?”

No I say I don’t like that law and work to change it. I don’t lie about what the law says. I don’t demonize the people who agree with the law. And I don’t ignore the law just because I don’t like it. I also realize that my opinions aren’t held be everyone else, so if my efforts to change the law don’t work I accept that reality.

mack man

O’Brien that is interesting. You have no moral opinion so the law is absolute. Yet you say that if you don’t like a law you work to change it. That smells of hypocrisy.

“Morals are not absolute and everyone has he same morals” where did you get that from? – O’Brien stop writing drivel and making things up.

Then you go to say “if my efforts to change the law don’t work I accept that reality”. So you just lie down and get crushed, because that is the law. If a dictatorship happened in your country and the police took away your family to be tortured for no apparent reason, then you would just eventually, as you say, “accept that reality” – yeah unlikely. But I keep forgetting that you have no empathy or moral opinion and the law is god.

Mike O’Brien

I got it from your obvious belief that in the fantasy world you inhabit, your morals are universal and everyone should believe just as you do.

“If a dictatorship happened in your country and the police took away your
family to be tortured for no apparent reason, then you would just
eventually, as you say, “accept that reality””

I don’t know how I would react since it hasn’t happened. All I can base my answers on is my actual experience and not some fantasy that you dream up. Might as well ask me what if ‘So Long and Thanks for All the Fish” was true.

mack man

Woo-hoo O’brien! I’m loving this…. You don’t know how you would react to something because it’s in the future and has not happened? Do you really think that? You are becoming more weirder and slightly creepy as you write. Why even bother watching a movie, playing sport, eating or even breathing because you don’t know how it will feel?

Mike O’Brien

Yes regulations. Like the agreed regulation giving every member the right to object to new regulations. And your opinion is noted.

Jeff

Most of the Japanese people have moved away from past barbaric practises, but those who do remain could do well to understand why the rest of the world reviles from killing Dolphin and Whales, with no ability to fight back the practise is seen in the light of reality, these are not cattle bred for thousands of years, these are wild and intelligent mammals. If you desire their flesh so much breed them in captivity like other livestock, otherwise go fish for your supper.

Mike O’Brien

Well except the other countries who hunt and kill dolphins and whales.

So I guess your claim is just a lie. Sorry. You fail.

Jeff

Mike, read again, the comment is for everyone, here we are talking about the current Japanese practise, what an embarrassment…

Mike O’Brien

Maybe you need to read your own comment again, Jeff.

“…could do well to understand why THE REST OF THE WORLD reviles the killing…”(my capitalization)

And obviously ‘the rest of the world doesn’t revile the killing’ since parts of ‘the rest of the world’ practice the same killing. Like I said your claim is a lie and you have failed again.

Jeff

7.5 billion people in the world and just a minority of Japanese eating Dolphin, what’s more you relabel it “whale” because it won’t otherwise sell..

Mike O’Brien

So just more lies.

World population is about 7.21 billion not 7.5 billion and Japanese aren’t the only ones eating dolphin. You fail again.

Jeff

Really? the population count for China is biased towards the one child policy leading to inaccuracy as noted in the global census.

As previously noted the processed Dolphin is relabelled as “Whale” and please don’t try to tell me you have a thriving export market, powered by 200 fisherman in a single village.

Ken5745

Even if the Danes and the Inuits eat whales and dolphins does it make right?

Where is your proof that the world population is about 7.21 billion? From the UN?

Mike O’Brien

I wasn’t arguing whether it was right or not. I was pointing out that jeff was wrong.

Well, Ken5745, where is your proof that it isn’t about 7.21 billion?

I went to multiple sources and got a consensus, that is also why I used the qualifier ‘about’.

Population Institute says about 7.250B
Worldometers says about 7.215B
geohive says about 7.213B
US governent says about 7.149B

Averaged and rounded to 3 significant digits gives about 7.21B

Ken5745

1 You say “I wasn’t arguing whether it was right or not.”

That was because you were nit-picking on the peripheral issues. Now I am asking you “Even if the Danes and the Inuits eat whales and dolphins does it make right?”

And even if you add in the folks from Norway and the Solomon islands, the people in the world who eat whales and dolphins are still in the minority of less than about 1.914% if according to you the world population is about 7.21 billion.

If that is the case then it means that about 98.084% of the people of Planet Earth do not eat whales and dolphins.

In that sense Jeff is right because his central point, which you ignored, is that the people who eat whales and dolphins are in the wafer-thin minority.

2 You asked “where is your proof that it isn’t about 7.21 billion?”

In case the nuance escapes you, if you are from a common law jurisdiction the Latin maxim ” “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” applies.

It means “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.”

Since you say that Jeff’s estimate of the world population is wrong then the burden of proof is on you. That is why I ask you for the proof.

Now you say it is about 7.21 billion and you based your estimate on a few sources.

But the fact is that no one knows the exact population in the world, as according to UN estimates about 81,000,000 people a year are added to the world population.

So my point is that Jeff and your estimates are at best only estimates. If you say Jeff is wrong then it is like the pot calling the kettle black. Get it?

Mike O’Brien

“Now I am asking you “Even if the Danes and the Inuits eat whales and dolphins does it make right?”

No it doesn’t make it right. It also doesn’t make it wrong.

“In that sense Jeff is right because his central point, which you
ignored, is that the people who eat whales and dolphins are in the
wafer-thin minority.”

Ah, so you can read jeff’s mind and know what his point was. Because it appeared to me that his point was that only Japan eats dolphin meat while the rest of the world doesn’t.

“the people in the world who eat whales and dolphins are still in the
minority of less than about 1.914% if according to you the world
population is about 7.21 billion.”

So? The number of Jews in the world is about 1.85%, thus about 98.15% of the world doesn’t eat matzo, so I guess it would be OK to ban it, right?

“In case the nuance escapes you, if you are from a common law
jurisdiction the Latin maxim “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui
agit” applies.”

So then why didn’t you insist that jeff support his claim of 7.5B?

“But the fact is that no one knows the exact population in the world,”

No kidding Sherlock. That is why I said ‘about’. But I realize that is beyond your ability to understand.

” If you say Jeff is wrong then it is like the pot calling the kettle black. Get it?”

No it is not because my estimate is based on the science of experts not some number I just pulled out of my ass like jeff did. Get it?

Ken5745

1″No it doesn’t make it right.” (“Even if the
Danes and the Inuits eat whales and dolphins)

Thank you. I agree with you.

2 “It also doesn’t make it wrong.”

Why contradict yourself? Do you have a split personality?

3 “Ah, so you can read jeff’s mind and know what his point was.”

No, I cannot read his mind or walk on water.

4 “Because it appeared to me that his point was that only Japan eats dolphin meat while the rest of the world doesn’t.”

So are you implying that you can read Jeff’s mind and also walk on water?

Look pal, it’s a no brainer that he has read the article and knows that “The reality is that Japan, by large, is not economically dependent on dolphin fishing any more than Norway, Denmark or Solomon Islands, which continue the practice even today.”. He singled out Japan because this thread is about ‘dolphin fishing in Taiji’. Get it?

5 “So? The number of Jews in the world is about 1.85%,”

If it is 1.85% then according to your estimate of the world’s population there
are 133.2 million Jews in the world. What brand of methanol are you drinking?

6 “thus about 98.15% of the world doesn’t eat matzo, so I guess it would be OK to ban it, right?”

Wrong. Comparing matzo to a dolphin is like comparing chalk and cheese. And why bother to ban matzo when it is just unleavened bread?

7 “That is why I said ‘about’.”

Hey pal, a disclaimer is a personal admission that you have no clue what the
right answer is. If you call another poster a liar for stating a different figure it is like a pot calling the kettle black.

Look, if you are asked to divide 14.6 by 2 by your primary school teacher and your answer is ‘about’ 7.2 would you still roll on the floor and labor under the delusion that you are right when your teacher says it’s wrong?

8 “So then why didn’t you insist that jeff (sic) support his claim of 7.5B?”

Because if I did then the burden of proof shifts to me and I don’t have the correct answer.

So intuitively I gave him the benefit of the doubt as it is in the ballpark, since no one knows the EXACT population of the world, not even you. If he had claimed the world
population today is 9.5 billion then that would be clearly wrong. Why? Because the UN says that is the estimate for 2050.

9 “my estimate is based on the science of
experts”

Nonsense. In case the nuance escapes you again a world population study is not an exact science. It is at best only an estimate and the experts are from the UN and not from worlddometers or Geohive.

Mike O’Brien

“Why contradict yourself? Do you have a split personality?”

I am not and I don’t. You inability to understand plain English is your problem not mine. You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right, and whether anubody eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong. The eating of a particular animal has no bearing on the whether it is right or wrong.

“No, I cannot read his mind or walk on water.”

But you know what he means. So unless you are also Jeff or you can read his mind, you must just be pulling it out of your ass.

“So are you implying that you can read Jeff’s mind and also walk on water?”
Again you show your inability to comprehend English. I plainly said “it appeared to me”, which indicates that I don’t know what he meant but I do know what I think he meant.

“Look pal”

First I am not your pal, dud. And second, if it is what he meant then why hasn’t he said so?

“If it is 1.85% then according to your estimate of the world’s population there are 133.2 million Jews in the world.”

Your right, I misplaced the decimal. It should have been 0.185%, even better for my point. Thanks for your help.

“Because if I did then the burden of proof shifts to me and I don’t have the correct answer.”

No it doesn’t. Despite your earlier claim, the burden of proof falls to the person who makes the claim not the person who challenges the claim.

“Nonsense”

No, fact. There are experts who estimate the world population at any given time. And sorry, dud, but the UN doesn’t have some kind of lock on all the experts. There are population experts working for all kinds of non-UN groups and companies and there are all kinds of places that use the data from those experts to publish their estimates.

Ken5745

1 “You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right,”

And your answer was No. Then you contradicted yourself and said it was not wrong either.

2 “and whether anubody (sic) eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong.”

Don’t misquote me. I did not ask you that question.

3 “You inability to understand plain English is your problem not mine.”

If your command of the English language is so darn great where did you learn to spell ‘anubody’? And why use a small cap for a proper noun? Why say “Your right” instead of “You are right”?

4 “The eating of a particular animal has no bearing on the whether it is right or wrong.”

Nonsense. This shows your ignorance. If you catch an Atlantic sturgeon without a permit in the United States and eat it you will quickly discover why it is wrong.

5 “But you know what he means.”

Unlike you I was not nit-picking and I gave him the benefit of the doubt when he said the world pop was 7.5B.

6 “So unless you are also Jeff or you can read his mind,”

Now you are showing signs of paranoia. I am not Jeff.

7 ”I plainly said “it appeared to me”, which indicates that I don’t know what he meant but I do know what I think he meant.

This debate is not about on semantics. If you don’t know what he meant why vilify him?

8 “First I am not your pal,”

The acronym PAL does not mean a “friend”. It means “Personality-Affected Loser” and that describes you for calling a poster a liar when you don’t even know the right answer. Adding a disclaimer “about” showed you had no clue what the right answer was/is.

9 “Your (sic) right, I misplaced the decimal. It should have been 0.185%,

Not only is your math bad but your use of the English language needs polishing up too.

10 “even better for my point.:

Not true. What is the point of banning unleavened bread? That was a weak example.

11 “Despite your earlier claim, the burden of proof falls to the person who makes the claim not the person who challenges the claim.”

Not true. Now you really show your ignorance. These are at least 3 scenarios that show that the burden of proof does not fall on the person who makes the claim :

a) If the husband claims that his wife and a man spent many hours in a hotel room and claims that she committed adultery the burden of proof is not on the husband who makes the claim because in a divorce proceeding if the evidence shows without doubt that a man and someone’s wife spent many hours in a hotel room then the court’s presumption is that hey went there to have illicit sex.

b) If the prosecution claims in a murder trial that you stabbed a man to death in a pub and you challenge the prosecution because you are not guilty by reason of insanity, then the burden of proof shifts to you (who challenge the claim) to show proof that you were insane at the material time.

c) If I claim that the UK has no written constitution and you challenge me then the burden of proof shifts to you to produce a copy of the written constitution. But can you though?

12 “There are experts who *estimate* the world population at any given time.”

That is my whole point. They can give at best only an ESTIMATE and your claim of ‘about’ 7.21B is also at best only an estimate. So why call Jeff a liar then?

Mike O’Brien

“And your answer was No. Then you contradicted yourself and said it was not wrong either.”

And another fail for Ken. You are claiming that it is black or white. Everything is either right or wrong. That is a false claim, many things are neutral, neither right nor wrong.

“Don’t misquote me. I did not ask you that question.”

There where no quote marks, so obviously I wasn’t quoting you. Really dud, learn to comprehend English.

“If you catch an Atlantic sturgeon without a permit in the United States and eat it you will quickly discover why it is wrong.”

No I will discover that it is illegal. Illegal and wrong are not always the same thing. Oh and it is the catching of the fish that is illegal not the eating of it, so another example of yours that doesn’t do what you claim it does.

“The acronym PAL does not mean a “friend”.”

And your use wasn’t capitalized and thus not a recognizable acronym.

We are not in a divorce case, so ‘a’ is useless to prove what you claim it does. ‘c’ deals with a negative which can’t be proven, so it also is useless for your argument. And ‘b’ involves the defendant claiming that he was insane and thus he is required to prove that claim, just like in my claim. So thanks for helping to support my claim.

“So why call Jeff a liar then?”

I never called Jeff’s population number a lie, I said it was wrong. And sorry dud, but just because population numbers are estimates doesn’t mean you can throw out any number and be free from being called wrong. Estimates of population are based on known facts and reasonable assumptions. Using unreasonable assumptions, or just pulling a number out of your ass as I believe Jeff did, can lead to a wrong estimate.

mack man

O’Brien you are indeed a very petty man. You nit pick about facts that really no one cares about, such as world population. Don’t you think, this fact is irrelevant in a forum topic about “Dolphin fishing in Taiji? By your own admission you have no moral intelligence or empathy, instead you are obsessed with laws, and numbers. You do not care in the slightest if Dolphins in Taiji suffer in any way. To you it is all about law. To quote from one of you poorly spelt sentences:

“ Illegal and wrong are not always the same thing”.

Yes that is exactly my point. So how about thinking about what is right and wrong?

You can whine and cry every time you write, but you are backing the loosing horse. Every year whales hunted in the Southern Oceans get less and less. I know, even you admit this fact. More and more bad publicity is generated against the Taiji dolphin hunt. Soon it will become untenable to continue dolphin hunting. How does it feel to be a desperate looser? Never mind O’Brien chin up.

As special recognition for the drivel that you write, I would like to award you, on behalf of this forum, “Douche of the year”. It is an award that you thoroughly deserve.

Ken5745

Well spoken.I second that.

Ken5745

1 “many things are neutral, neither right nor wrong.”

We are not talking about many things. Just about whether it is right or wrong to eat dolphins and whales. You said it is wrong and then it is not wrong. Why sit on the fence?

2 “There where no quote marks, so obviously I wasn’t quoting you.”

These are your actual words :”You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right, and whether anubody (sic) eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong “

See the conjunction “and”? That implied I asked two questions. Not true. I did not.

3.”Illegal and wrong are not always the same thing. Oh and it is the catching of the fish that is illegal not the eating of it”

Are you implying that an illegal act and a wrongdoing are not the same?

And if you are in a beach campsite and your mate caught an Atlantic sturgeon with no permit and you alone ate it as he is allergic to that species, are you sure you will not be charged as an accessory to the offense?

4″And your use wasn’t capitalized and thus not a recognizable acronym.”

It’s a poor excuse, pal. You fell into a trap.

5”We are not in a divorce case, so ‘a’ is useless to prove what you claim it does”

Did you state an exclusion scenario when you posted the wrong legal principle? No.

6 ‘c’ deals with a negative which can’t be proven, so it also is useless for your argument.”

But it showed that you were stating the wrong legal principle.

7 “And ‘b’ involves the defendant claiming that he was insane and thus he is required to prove that claim, just like in my claim.”

Not true. When a person is so insane that he does not know his surrounding he has a diminished capacity and is unable to prove his claim. This is done by a panel of psychiatrists appointed by the court. You fell into a trap. In a 19th century case the man got away with murder but had to be incarcerated in a mental home.

8 “I never called Jeff’s population number a lie, I said it was wrong. “

You are not telling the truth here, pal.

When Jeff mentioned “7.5 billion people in the world and just a minority of Japanese eating Dolphin”, your actual words were “So just more lies. World population is about 7.21 billion not 7.5 billion.”

9 ‘Estimates of population are based on known facts and reasonable assumptions.”

The whole point which you try to ignore is that a world population study is at best only an estimate. By the time you finished reading my post a few hundreds or even thousand more people are added to the world’s population. Get it?

Mike O’Brien

“You said it is wrong”

Really? Care to quote where I did that? English comprehension, dud.

“See the conjunction “and”?”

See the lack of quotation marks in my post? That means that it wasn’t a quote. What your weak mind decides to read into it is your problem not mine.
“are you sure you will not be charged as an accessory to the offense?”
No I am not. But if I was it would be accessory to CATCHING the fish now wouldn’t it, as that is the crime involved.

“It’s a poor excuse, pal. You fell into a trap.”

You mean like the trap I have had you running around in for days now just to amuse me?

Hey, dud. No such legal principle is involved as we still aren’t in a court.

But what your saying is that if the police charge you with a crime (analogous to Jeff saying 7.5 billion) and you say you didn’t do it (analogous to me saying his number was wrong), it is then you that has to prove your innocence? Sorry, dud. That isn’t how it works. The police (or analogously Jeff) retain the need to prove their claim, not you (or analogously me).

“But it showed that you were stating the wrong legal principle.”

Get it through your skull, dud. We aren’t in a court of law so legal principles be damned. But it remains that a negative like you proposed can’t be proven so the claimant can’t be expected to prove said negative. Thus no bearing on the situation under discussion where a negative isn’t involved.

“Not true.”

Yes true. If a defendant claims diminished capacity he has to support that claim. And you might not know this but we aren’t in the 19th century any more. The way mentally ill people were treated then is quite different than the current ways.

“When Jeff mentioned “7.5 billion people in the world and just a minority of Japanese eating Dolphin””

Actually Jeff’s words were “7.5 billion people in the world and just a minority of Japanese eating Dolphin, what’s more you relabel it “whale” because it won’t otherwise sell..”

He made 3 claims in that post. And as your quote so kindly points out, I never attached the word lies to his population number.

“By the time you finished reading my post a few hundreds or even thousand more people are added to the world’s population. Get it?”

And it is still not near 7.5 billion. Get it?

Ken5745

1 “See the lack of quotation marks in my post? That means that it wasn’t a quote.”

Nonsense. You made two statements

a) “You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right,”

2 “But if I was it would be accessory to CATCHING the fish now wouldn’t it, as that is the crime involved.”

Heard the phrase qui bono? Check it out.

3 “You mean like the trap I have had you running around in for days now just to amuse me?”

No the trap that made you believe I was calling you my pal or friend when it mean personality-affected loser.

4 “No such legal principle is involved as we still aren’t in a court. ”

Wrong again, turd. A debate is like a moot court.

5 “it is then you that has to prove your innocence? ”

No when the police charges you with a crime he and the prosecution have to prove in court that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as there is the presumption of innocence until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Get it? Yawn !

6 “We aren’t in a court of law so legal principles be damned”

Then do you prefer to use the law of the jungle in a civilized debate, as in a moot court?

7 “The way mentally ill people were treated then is quite different than the current ways.”

You show your ignorance turd. In the 19th century case the murderer got away Scot-free so easily. The House of Lords intervened in later cases and now under the new rules, loss of control because of mental illness is no longer a defense.

8 “I never attached the word lies to his population number.”

Se my last post turd. There is a saying that when a person tells a lie he will have tell more lies to cover his first lie.

9 And why is your estimate of ‘about’ 7.21 billion more correct when both were mere estimates?

Mike O’Brien

“If you want to be petty I only asked question a) and not question b)”
And if you understood English you would understand that first I never said you asked or even said ‘b)’ and second that ‘b)’ isn’t a question.

“Heard the phrase qui bono? Check it out.”

It really has no bearing on the hypothetical story you proposed. It would still be accessory to CATCHING the fish and not to eating the fish.

“Wrong again, turd. A debate is like a moot court.”

No it isn’t. It is a debate, not a legal proceeding and not even a simulated legal proceeding.

“No when the police charges you with a crime he and the prosecution have to prove in court that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as there is the presumption of innocence until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Get it? Yawn !”

So the person making the initial claim (police) have to prove their claim. Yet for days you have whined that it is the person that challenges the claim who has to prove their challenge.

“Then do you prefer to use the law of the jungle in a civilized debate, as in a moot court?”

This isn’t law school and we aren’t simulating a legal proceedings.

“Se my last post turd. There is a saying that when a person tells a lie he will have tell more lies to cover his first lie.”

Then why do you continue to lie? Quote where I called his population number a lie, and you can also quote where, as you claimed, I said that eating dolphin was wrong and where I said eating dolphin was not wrong. Or are you going to tell more lies to cover your first lies?

“And why is your estimate of ‘about’ 7.21 billion more correct when both were mere estimates?”

Because my estimate was based on the expert opinions of people who have the job of making the best estimates possible of world population.

“Not true. Why labor under the delusions that there is a burden of proof in a divorce proceeding when a man is found in a hotel room with another man’s wife for many hours when I already told you that the court’s presumption is that they go there to have illicit sex?”

Yes true. The husbands claim was the adultery, not them being found in a hotel room. Them being found in a hotel room was the basis of that claim and is assumed to prove the claim. When the husband makes the claim that his wife has committed adultery he has to provide some proof or in this case some fact that leads to the ssumption of proof. If all he did was make the claim of adultery he would not have a cause of action, because as the initial claimant he needs to support his claim, then and only then does his wife have the burden of disproving his claim. For someone who appears to have such a fascination with the law to not understand that is laughable. Of course you have proven to be laughable over and over, so I guess it shouldn’t surprise anybody.

Ken5745

1 “And if you understood English you would understand that first I never said *you asked* or even said ‘b)’ and second that ‘b)’ isn’t a question.”

To keep saying you never said *you asked* and hoping to prove you are right when the reality is that you did is, IMHO, a sign of mental illness. Hey, turd are you blind or what?

These are your exact words: “*YOU ASKED* if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right *and whether* anubody (sic) eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong”.

The words *and whether* following the first sentence is your claim that I had *also* asked “*WHETHER* anubody (sic) eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong”.

I never asked the second question. Get in into your thick head.

2 “It would still be accessory to CATCHING the fish and not to eating the
fish.”

Wrong again turd. Under the Act it matters not what you do with the endangered Atlantic Sturgeon which is caught without a license. It matters not if you ate it or stuffed it up the other end of your alimentary canal where the
sun don’t shine or frame it on a wall, you will be charged with POSSESSION and the fine is “not more than $ 50,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both”. Get it?

3 “No it isn’t. It is a debate, not a legal proceeding and not even a simulated legal proceeding.”

Then why bother to create a wrong legal principle of the burden of proof and then go to such lengths to proof you are wrong?

4 “So the person making the initial claim (police) have to prove their claim. Yet for days you have whined that it is the person that challenges the claim who has to prove their challenge.”

Not true. You missed the point because I was then only proving that your own definition of the burden of proof was flawed.

Now if the police is *charging* you in court (not merely making a claim or an allegation) with a crime that you did not commit then according to the legal principle of “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agti”, the necessity of proof always lies with the police who lays the charges, to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty.

If I put it to you that Pres Reagan died at age 93 and you charge me with telling a lie then the burden shifts to you. It is so simple a principle to understand and yet you are all at sea.

But if I predict that the world will be attacked by Aliens in 2015 then the burden of proof shifts to me. Get it?

5 “This isn’t law school and we aren’t simulating a legal proceedings.”

Then why bother to create a wrong legal principle of the burden of proof and then go to such lengths to prove you are wrong?

6 “Then why do you continue to lie?

Which lie did I tell?

7 “Quote where I called his population number a lie, “

When he mentioned that the world population was 7.5B your response was “Just more
lies.”

8 “Because my estimate was based on the expert opinions of people who have the job of making the best estimates possible of world population.”

But it is still at best an estimate. If I asked you both to divide 14.8 by 2
and Jeff’s answer is 7.5 because he rounded up 14.8 to 15 and divided it by 2 and you gave an answer of *about* 7.12 . Both answers are evidently wrong. So why do you call Jeff a liar and insist your answer is right?

9 “Husbands claim was the adultery, not them being found in a hotel room.Them being found in a hotel room was the basis of that claim and is assumed to prove the claim. When the husband makes the claim that his wife has committed adultery he has to provide some proof or in this case some fact that leads to
the ssumption of proof. If all he did was make the claim of adultery he would not have a cause of action, because as the initial claimant he needs to support his claim, then and only then does his wife have the burden of disproving his claim.”

Gee for a turd to say that “This isn’t law school and we aren’t simulating a legal proceedings” you are going to extraordinary lengths to prove you are ignorant of the fact that in a divorce proceeding when a man is found in a hotel room with another man’s wife for many hours the court’s presumption is that they go
there to have illicit sex? There is no burden of proof when there is such a presumption. Get it?

10 “For someone who appears to have such a fascination with the law to not understand that is laughable.”

At least I can quote an accepted legal principle. To labor under the delusion that you know the principle of the burden of proof by trashing a few-century old legal principle
of ‘semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agti’ and then substituting it with your own flawed principle only shows your self aggrandizement with an ego that is as big as the southern end of a north-bound camel.

Mike O’Brien

“I never asked the second question. Get in into your thick head.”

The second STATEMENT isn’t a question. Get it?

“you will be charged with POSSESSION”

Ah, and POSSESSION still isn’t eating and thus your continued whining about it being illegal to eat the fish is wrong BY YOUR OWN WORDS. Get it?

“Then why bother to create a wrong legal principle of the burden of proof”
Sorry dud, that is all you. You are the one that keeps bring up burden of proof and who has to prove what. But thanks for going to such lengths to prove you are an idiot. Get it?

“If I put it to you that Pres Reagan died at age 93 and you charge me with telling a lie then the burden shifts to you. It is so simple a principle to understand and yet you are all at sea.

But if I predict that the world will be attacked by Aliens in 2015 then the burden of proof shifts to me. Get it?”

So in one case the burden of proof is not with the initial claimant and then in another case the burden of proof is with the original claimant. So whatever supports your warped sense of reality is what is true even if things contradict eachother. And thus again by your own words, you prove you are an idiot who has been agruing against yourself the whole time. What a loser you are. Get it?

“Which lie did I tell?”

Well you claim I quote you when I didn’t quote anything. You claimed that I said Jeff’s population number was a lie when I never said any such thing. You claimed I said that that eating dolphin was wrong when I never said any such thing. Get it?

“When he mentioned that the world population was 7.5B your response was “Just more lies.””

Nope, learn to comprehend English and stop selective copy and pasting. I made that statement in response to a series of claims by Jeff. I never said ALL of those claims were lies, thus I never said his population number was a lie. Get it?

“If I asked you both to divide 14.8 by 2 and Jeff’s answer is 7.5 because he rounded up 14.8 to 15 and divided it by 2 and you gave an answer of *about* 7.12 . Both answers are evidently wrong. So why do you call Jeff a liar and insist your answer is right?”

Well because dividing one number by another results in an exact number. No rounding is needed and no “about” answer is correct either. There is an exact answer to the question of 14.8 divided by 2 and that answer will be the same always. While world population is in constant flux and any answer would only be correct for a fleeting instant, so it makes more sense and is more ‘correct’ to give a reasonable estimate. Get it?

“Gee for a turd to say that “This isn’t law school and we aren’t simulating a legal proceedings” you are going to extraordinary lengths to prove you are ignorant of the fact that in a divorce proceeding when a man is found in a hotel room with another man’s wife for many hours the court’s presumption is that they go
there to have illicit sex?”

Gee for a turd that brought up the whole divorce story your sure are ignorant. I haven’t tried to prove or disprove what the court presumes, in fact I haven’t addressed the presumption issue because it is irrelevant to the discussion of who has the burden of proof. The initial claim is adultery and the initial claimant has to provide proof. What the court accepts as proof and what presumptions the court makes has no bearing on that initial responsibility to provide proof of the claim. Get it?

Ken5745

1 These are your exact words “You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right AND *whether* anubody (sic) eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong”.

First you even claimed “I never said you asked” and when you are shown your exact words now you admit that you did say “YOU ASKED* if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right “

Good now we got that admission out of you out of the way we shall deal with the 2nd sentence.

2 You say “The second STATEMENT isn’t a question. Get it?”

Let’s do a forensic study of the first and second sentences which are of equal importance as they are joined by a coordinating conjunction “and” and the 2nd sentence starts with “Whether” but you keep repeating that the 2nd sentence is not a question.

Not true, because according to the Macmillan dictionary both ‘IF’ and ‘Whether’ are used to introduce indirect questions. So it is clear that both sentences were questions paraphrased by you as “You asked

a) If the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right AND

b)Whether anubody (sic) eats whale and
dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong”.

You already admitted that you did indeed say : “You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right”

If you now claim that the 2nd sentence is an
unrelated statement why did you join two unrelated sentences by a coordinating conjunction “and”? Is it because your grammar is faulty after implying that you are an expert in the English language and repeatedly correcting other posters’ use of the English language?

3 “Ah, and POSSESSION still isn’t eating “

Possession covers a host of human activities after landing a fish like eating of the roe (caviar) or meat or liver or eyes or kidneys or bladder or head or brain or using the scales as a jewelry or the bones as medicine or sell
it or smoke it to preserve it or to simply framing it up on the wall or to stuff it up your other end of the alimentary canal. It is pointless to list all
that a human can do to a fish under the Act as it might miss out one. So it matters not what you do with it. So long as it is in your possession it is a strict liability offense.

And turd will it help you one iota if you keep repeating the mantra “But judge eating of the Atlantic Sturgeon is not an offense” when the judge sentences you 1 year in the slammer plus a $5,000 deterrence fine for possession of an endangered species without a license? Will it?

4″ Sorry dud, that is all you. You are the one that keeps bring up burden of proof “

But at least I stated the correct principle “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” which means “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges”

It was you who came up a wrong principle just to be pig-headed.

5 “So in one case the burden of proof is not with the initial claimant and then in another case the burden of proof is with the original claimant.”

Do a search and you will understand that the burden of proof shifts to the person who lays charges like what the Latin maxim above says. For example:

a) If I put it to you that Pres Reagan died at age 93 and this is a fact and you charge me with telling a lie then the burden shifts to you. All you need to do to prove me wrong is to print a copy of his bio from the net.

b) But if Jack *predicts* that the world will be attacked by Aliens in 2015 you will not be charging him with telling a lie as it is only a light-hearted prediction in good faith in a party
but you may call him a ‘loony with tin-foil hat’ or whatever. But without any charge laid by you the burden of proof shifts back to Jack because it is impossible for you or anyone to prove him wrong as it is his prediction. If Jack
predicts that the sun won’t shine next week can you prove him wrong? No. Did you make any charges? No unless you are stupid. Then the burden of proof shifts to jack.

c) But if I say that the UK has no written constitution and you charge me with telling a lie then the burden of proof lies with you who lay charges. All you need to prove me wrong is to go to Yahoo. Is it not true that you are asked to prove a *negative*. See how easy it is to do so at this link. Use a full stop for ‘dot’.

d) But in a divorce proceeding if a man and someone’s wife are found spending many hours in a hotel room, no burden of proof is necessary as the family court’s presumption is that they go there to have illicit sex.

e) But in a criminal trial or murder case first the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (because in a common law jurisdiction there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty) but the exception is that the moment you plead that you are innocent by reason of insanity then the burden shifts to you. Now the rule is that even if you lost control because of your mental illness it is no longer a defense. You need to prove that you were so insane that you did not even know of the surrounding or what you did was wrong. Get it?

6 And when I asked you which lie did I tell you made these allegations:

a)“Well you claim I quote you when I didn’t quote anything.”

Hey silly billy, a claim does not amount to accusing you of lying. It is to point out that you made an error. Anyway after denying repeatedly you have now admitted that you did say I asked the 1st question. The 2nd question is still work in progress. See above item No2.

b)”You claimed that I said Jeff’s population number was a lie when I never said any such thing.”

This is because when he mentioned that the world population was 7.5B plus 2 more claims your response was “Just more lies.” Why keep denying?

c) ” Nope, I made that statement in response to a series of claims by Jeff. I never said ALL of those claims were lies, thus I never said his population number was a lie. Get it?”

These are Jeff’s exact word “7.5 billion people in the world and just a minority of Japanese eating Dolphin, what’s more you relabel it “whale” because it won’t otherwise sell.”

By your own admission he made 3 claims in the above words of Jeff but ONE of the claims by Jeff at the material time was that the world’s population was 7.5B and you said “Just more lies” implying that all 3 claims by Jeff were ‘Just more lies’. Why keep denying it?

d)”You claimed I said that that eating dolphin was wrong when I never said any such thing. Get it?”

Why is telling you that your concept of the Act is wrong is the same as saying you are telling a lie? Go figure.

7 “While world population is in constant flux and any answer would only be correct for a fleeting instant, so it makes more sense and is more ‘correct’ to give a reasonable estimate. Get it?”

What is the point of claiming that your answer is ‘more’ correct when no one knows the real answer? It’s all a guesstimate. Why should your guesstimate be ‘more’ correct than his? And based on your flawed guesstimate why are you justified to call him a liar?

8.”The initial claim is adultery and the initial claimant has to provide proof.”

Unless the husband has a video camera in the hotel room or it is planted there by a Pi to record and screen it at the proceedings then it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they went to the hotel to have illicit sex.

That is why in a divorce proceeding the court’s presumption is that they are there to have illicit sex. The husband does not need to *provide proof* like a DVD to show that they went there to have illicit sex. Get it now?

9” What the court accepts as proof and what presumptions the court makes has no bearing on that initial responsibility to provide proof of the claim. Get it?”

But you fool, in a divorce proceeding it is not necessary prove adultery, which is a legit reason to file for a divorce. If the man and someone’s wife spend many hours in a hotel room the family court will make the assumption that they go there to have illicit sex. Why is that you are unable to understand this simple principle of Presumption? Are you just being pig-headed or what?

Ken5745

1 These are your exact words “You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right AND *whether* anubody (sic) eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong”.

First you even claimed “I never said you asked” and when you are shown your exact words now you admit that you did say “YOU ASKED* if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right “

Good now we got that admission out of you out of the way we shall deal with the 2nd sentence.

2 You say “The second STATEMENT isn’t a question. Get it?”

Let’s do a forensic study of the first and second sentences which are of equal importance as they are joined by a coordinating conjunction “and” and the 2nd sentence starts with “Whether” but you keep repeating that the 2nd sentence is not a question.

Not true, because according to the Macmillan dictionary both ‘IF’ and ‘Whether’ are used to introduce indirect questions. So it is clear that both sentences were questions paraphrased by you as “You asked

a) If the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right AND

b)Whether anubody (sic) eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong”.

You already admitted that you did indeed say : “You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right”

If you now claim that the 2nd sentence is an unrelated statement why did you join two unrelated sentences by a coordinating conjunction “and”? Is it because your grammar is faulty after implying that you are an expert in the English language and repeatedly correcting other posters’ use of the English language?

3 “Ah, and POSSESSION still isn’t eating “

Possession covers a host of human activities after landing a fish like eating of the roe (caviar) or meat or liver or eyes or kidneys or bladder or head or brain or using the scales as a jewelry or the bones as medicine or sell
it or smoke it to preserve it or to simply framing it up on the wall or to stuff it up your other end of the alimentary canal. It is pointless to list all
that a human can do to a fish under the Act as it might miss out one. So it matters not what you do with it. So long as it is in your possession it is a strict liability offense.

And turd will it help you one iota if you keep repeating the mantra “But judge eating of the Atlantic Sturgeon is not an offense” when the judge sentences you 1 year in the slammer plus a $5,000 deterrence fine for possession of an endangered species without a license? Will it?

4″ Sorry dud, that is all you. You are the one that keeps bring up burden of proof “

But at least I stated the correct principle “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” which means “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges”

It was you who came up a wrong principle just to be pig-headed.

5 “So in one case the burden of proof is not with the initial claimant and then in another case the burden of proof is with the original claimant.”

Do a search and you will understand that the burden of proof shifts to the person who lays charges like what the Latin maxim above says. For example:

a) If I put it to you that Pres Reagan died at age 93 and this is a fact and you charge me with telling a lie then the burden shifts to you. All you need to do to prove me wrong is to print a copy of his bio from the net.

b) But if Jack *predicts* that the world will be attacked by Aliens in 2015 you will not be charging him with telling a lie as it is only a light-hearted prediction in good faith in a party but you may call him a ‘loony with tin-foil hat’ or whatever. But without any charge laid by you the burden of proof shifts back to Jack because it is impossible for you or anyone to prove him wrong as it is his prediction. If Jack predicts that the sun won’t shine next week can you prove him wrong? No. Did you make any charges? No unless you are stupid. Then the burden of proof shifts to jack.

c) But if I say that the UK has no written constitution and you charge me with telling a lie then the burden of proof lies with you who lay charges. All you need to prove me wrong
is to go to Yahoo. Is it not true that you are asked to prove a *negative*. See how easy it is to do so if you go to Yahoo and type the words “The UK Constitution”.

d) But in a divorce proceeding if a man and someone’s wife are found spending many hours in a hotel room, no burden of proof is necessary as the family court’s presumption is that they go there to have illicit sex.

e) But in a criminal trial or murder case first the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (because in a common law jurisdiction there is a presumption of innocence until
proven guilty) but the exception is that the moment you plead that you are innocent by reason of insanity then the burden shifts to you. Now the rule is that even if you lost control because of your mental illness it is no longer a defense. You need to prove that you were so insane that you did not even know
of the surrounding or what you did was wrong. Get it?

6 And when I asked you which lie did I tell you made these allegations:

a)“Well you claim I quote you when I didn’t quote anything.”

Hey silly billy, a claim does not amount to accusing you of lying. It is to point out that you made an error. Anyway after denying repeatedly you have now admitted that you did say I asked the 1st question. The 2nd question is still work in progress. See above item No2.

b)”You claimed that I said Jeff’s population number was a lie when I never said any such thing.”

This is because when he mentioned that the world population was 7.5B plus 2 more claims your response was “Just more lies.” Why keep denying?

c) ” Nope, I made that statement in response to a series of claims by Jeff. I never said ALL of those claims were lies, thus I never said his population number was a lie. Get it?”

These are Jeff’s exact word “7.5 billion people in the world and just a minority of Japanese eating Dolphin, what’s more you relabel it “whale” because it won’t otherwise sell.”

By your own admission he made 3 claims in the above words of Jeff but ONE of the claims by Jeff at the material time was that the world’s population was 7.5B and you said “Just more lies” implying that all 3 claims by Jeff were
‘Just more lies’. Why keep denying it?

d)”You claimed I said that that eating dolphin was wrong when I never said any such thing. Get it?”

Why is telling you that your concept of the Act is wrong is the same as saying you are telling a lie? Go figure.

7 “While world population is in constant flux and any answer would only be correct for a fleeting instant, so it makes more sense and is more ‘correct’ to give a reasonable estimate. Get it?”

What is the point of claiming that your answer is ‘more’ correct when no one knows the real answer? It’s all a guesstimate. Why should your guesstimate be ‘more’ correct than his? And based on your flawed guesstimate why are you justified to call him a liar?

8.”The initial claim is adultery and the initial claimant has to provide proof.”

Unless the husband has a video camera in the hotel room or it is planted there by a Pi to record and screen it at the proceedings then it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they went to the hotel to have illicit sex.

That is why in a divorce proceeding the court’s presumption is that they are there to have illicit sex. The husband does not need to *provide proof* like a DVD to show that they went there to have illicit sex. Get it now?

9” What the court accepts as proof and what presumptions the court makes has no bearing on that initial responsibility to provide proof of the claim. Get it?”

But you fool, in a divorce proceeding it is not necessary prove adultery,which is a legit reason to file for a divorce. If the man and someone’s wife spend many hours in a hotel room the family court will make the assumption that they go there to have illicit sex. Why is that you are unable to understand this simple principle of Presumption? Are you just being pig-headed or what?

Ken5745

I posted my reply 3 times but I don’t know why they are in the moderation queue. Here are two items as samples:

3 “Ah, and POSSESSION still isn’t eating “

Possession
covers a host of human activities after landing a fish like eating of
the roe (caviar) or meat or liver or eyes or kidneys or bladder or head
or brain or using the scales as a jewelry or the bones as medicine or
sell
it or smoke it to preserve it or to simply framing it up on the
wall or to stuff it up your other end of the alimentary canal. It is
pointless to list all
that a human can do to a fish under the Act as
it might miss out one. So it matters not what you do with it. So long as
it is in your possession it is a strict liability offense.

And
turd will it help you one iota if you keep repeating the mantra “But
judge eating of the Atlantic Sturgeon is not an offense” when the judge
sentences you 1 year in the slammer plus a $5,000 deterrence fine for
possession of an endangered species without a license? Will it?

6 And when I asked you which lie did I tell you made these allegations:

a)“Well you claim I quote you when I didn’t quote anything.”

Hey
silly billy, a claim does not amount to accusing you of lying. It is to
point out that you made an error. Anyway after denying repeatedly you
have now admitted that you did say I asked the 1st question. The 2nd
question is still work in progress. See above item No2.

b)”You claimed that I said Jeff’s population number was a lie when I never said any such thing.”

This
is because when he mentioned that the world population was 7.5B plus 2
more claims your response was “Just more lies.” Why keep denying?

c)
” Nope, I made that statement in response to a series of claims by
Jeff. I never said ALL of those claims were lies, thus I never said his
population number was a lie. Get it?”

These
are Jeff’s exact word “7.5 billion people in the world and just a
minority of Japanese eating Dolphin, what’s more you relabel it
“whale” because it won’t otherwise sell.”

By
your own admission he made 3 claims in the above words of Jeff but ONE
of the claims by Jeff at the material time was that the world’s
population was 7.5B and you said “Just more lies” implying that all 3
claims by Jeff were
‘Just more lies’. If you wish to exclude the 7.5B
as a lie then why not say “Just 2 more lies”? But you said “Just more
lies” showing you meant that the 7,5B claim was a lie too. Why keep
denying it?

d)”You claimed I said that that eating dolphin was wrong when I never said any such thing. Get it?”

Why is telling you that your concept of the Act is wrong is the same as saying you are telling a lie? Go figure.

Ken5745

And whilst waiting for the moderator to decide here are samples of No 1, 2, 4 & 5 points :

1These are your exact words “You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right AND *whether* anubody (sic) eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong”.

First you even claimed “I never said you asked” and when you are shown your exact words now you admit that you did say “YOU ASKED* if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right “

Good now we got that admission out of you out of the way we shall deal with the 2nd sentence.

2 You say “The second STATEMENT isn’t a question. Get it?”

Let’s do a forensic study of the first and second sentences which are of equal importance as they are joined by a coordinating conjunction “and” and the
2nd sentence starts with “Whether” but you keep repeating that the 2nd sentence is not a question.

Not true, because according to the Macmillan dictionary both ‘IF’ and ‘Whether’ are used to introduce indirect questions. So it is clear that
both sentences were questions paraphrased by you as “You asked

a) If the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right AND

b)Whether anubody (sic) eats whale and dolphin meat doesn’t make it right or wrong”.

You already admitted that you did indeed say : “You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right”

If you now claim that the 2nd sentence is an unrelated statement why did you join two unrelated sentences by a coordinating conjunction “and”? Is it because your grammar is faulty after implying that you are an expert
in the English language and repeatedly correcting other posters’ use of the English language?

4″ Sorry dud, that is all you. You are the one that keeps bring up burden of proof “

But at least I stated the correct principle “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” which means “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges”

It was you who came up a wrong principle just to be pig-headed.

5 “So in one case the burden of proof is not with the initial claimant and then in another case the burden of proof is with the original claimant.”

Do a search and you will understand that the burden of proof shifts to the person who lays charges like what the Latin maxim above says. For example:

a) If I put it to you that Pres Reagan died at age 93 and this is a fact and you charge me with telling a lie then the burden shifts to you. All you need to do to prove me wrong is to print a copy of his bio from the net.

b) But if Jack *predicts* that the world will be attacked by Aliens in 2015 you will not be charging him with telling a lie as it is only a light-hearted prediction in good faith in a party but you may call him a ‘loony with tin-foil
hat’ or whatever. But without any charge laid by you the burden of proof shifts back to Jack because it is impossible for you or anyone to prove him wrong as it is his prediction.

c) But if I say that the UK has no written constitution and you charge me with telling a lie then the burden of proof lies with you who lay charges. All you need to prove me wrong is to go to Yahoo. Is it not true that you are asked to prove a *negative*. See how easy it is to do so if you go to Yahoo. Just type “The UK Constitution’.

d) But in a divorce proceeding if a man and someone’s wife are found spending many hours in a hotel room, no burden of proof is necessary as the family court’s presumption is that they go there to have illicit sex.

e) But in a criminal trial or murder case first the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (because in a common law jurisdiction there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty) but the exception is that the moment you plead that you are innocent by reason of insanity then the burden shifts to
you. Now the rule is that even if you lost control because of your mental illness it is no longer a defense. You need to prove that you were so insane that you did not even know of the surrounding or what you did was wrong. Get it”

Ken5745

Here are samples of the rest of my post which is still waiting for moderation :

7 “While world population is in constant flux and any answer would only be correct for a fleeting instant, so it makes more sense and is more ‘correct’ to give a reasonable estimate. Get it?”

What is the point of claiming that your answer is ‘more’ correct when no one knows the real answer? It’s all a guesstimate. Why should your guesstimate be ‘more’ correct than his? And based on your flawed guesstimate why are you justified to call him a liar?

8.”The initial claim is adultery and the initial claimant has to provide proof.”

Unless the husband has a video camera in the hotel room or it is planted there by a Pi to record and screen it at the proceedings then it is impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt they went to the hotel to have illicit sex.

That is why in a divorce proceeding the court’s presumption is that they are there to have illicit sex. The husband does not need to *provide proof* like a DVD to show that they went there to have illicit sex. Get it now?

9” What the court accepts as proof and what presumptions the court makes has no bearing on that initial responsibility to provide proof of the claim. Get it?”

But you fool, in a divorce proceeding it is not necessary prove adultery, which is a legit reason to file for a divorce.

If the man and someone’s wife spend many hours in a hotel room the family court will make the assumption that they go there to have illicit sex. Why is that you are unable to understand this simple principle of Presumption? Are you just being pig-headed or what?

Ken5745

More samples here for you to address turd :

1 First you even claimed “I never said you asked” and when you are shown your exact words now you admit that you did say “YOU ASKED* if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right “

Good now we got that admission out of you out of the way we shall deal with the 2nd sentence.

2 You say “The second STATEMENT isn’t a question. Get it?”

Let’s do a forensic study of the 1st and 2nd sentences which are of equal importance as they are joined by a coordinating conjunction “and” and the 2nd sentence starts with “Whether” but you keep repeating that the 2nd sentence is not a question.

Not true, because according to the Macmillan dictionary both ‘IF’ and ‘Whether’ are used to introduce indirect questions. So it is clear that both sentences were questions paraphrased by you.

You already admitted that you did indeed say : “You asked if the fact that Danes and Inuits eat whale and dolphin meat makes it right”

If you now claim that the 2nd sentence is an unrelated statement why did you join two unrelated sentences by a coordinating conjunction “and”? Is it because your grammar is faulty after implying that you are an expert in the English language and repeatedly correcting other posters’ use of the English language?

Ken5745

More here to address turd :

4″ Sorry dud, that is all you. You are the one that keeps bring up burden of proof “

But at least I stated the correct principle “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” which means “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges”

It was you who came up a wrong principle just to be pig-headed.

5 “So in one case the burden of proof is not with the initial claimant and then in another case the burden of proof is with the original claimant.”

Do a search and you will understand that the burden of proof shifts to the person who lays charges like what the Latin maxim above says. For example:

a) But if Jack *predicts* that the world will be attacked by Aliens in 2015 you will not be charging him with telling a lie as it is only a light-hearted prediction in good faith in a party but you may call him a ‘loony with tin-foil hat’ or whatever. But without any charge laid by you the burden of proof shifts back to Jack to prove it.

b) But if I say that the UK has no written constitution and you charge me with telling a lie then the burden of proof lies with you who lay charges. Is it not true that you are asked to prove a *negative*. Type ‘The UK Constitution” and see how easy it is to search.

c) But in a divorce proceeding if a man and someone’s wife are found spending many hours in a hotel room, no burden of proof is necessary.

d) But in a criminal trial or murder case first the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt (because in a common law jurisdiction there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty) but the exception is that the moment you plead that you are innocent by reason of insanity then the burden shifts to you. Now the rule is that even if you lost control because of your mental illness it is no longer a defense. You need to prove that you were so insane that you did not even know of the surrounding or what you did was wrong. Get it?

Ken5745

Hope the moderator lets this one go:

4″ Sorry dud, that is all you. You are the one that keeps bring up burden of proof “

But at least I stated the correct principle “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” which means “the necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges”

It was you who came up a wrong principle just to be repulsive.

5 “So in one case the burden of proof is not with the initial claimant and then in another case the burden of proof is with the original claimant.”

Do a search and you will understand why the burden of proof shifts to the person who lays charges like what the Latin maxim above promulgates.

But turds like you invented a new but false principle.

And in case you still labor under the delusions that I am asking you prove a negative, stop whining and do a search and you will learn why the Brits have no written constitution. Get it now ?

Mike O’Brien

As I thought further about your divorce case analogy, it occurred to me that it also actually supports my claim and not yours.

The husband’s claim is that his wife committed adultery, which he then provides proof of by the wife having spent hours in a hotel room with another man. Only then does the burden shift to the wife. If all the husband had said was that he believed his wife had committed adultery, with no supporting proof, then his wife would not have the burden to prove anything.

The husband (analogous to Jeff) retains the burden of proof for his initial claim. It is not until he provides some proof that the burden shifts. The fact that he made his claim and provided the supporting proof at the same time does not change the fact that as the original claimant he always had that burden of initial proof.

Toying with trapped fools is so much fun.

Ken5745

Not true. Why labor under the delusions that there is a burden of proof in a divorce proceeding when a man is found in a hotel room with another man’s wife for many hours when I already told you that the court’s presumption is that they go there to have illicit sex?

Hey pal, when there is such a presumption by the family court there is no burden of proof.

Yes, toying with a trapped fool is so much fun when that person is a turd. (do note ‘turd’ here means ‘the utterly repulsive dill’ and not a piece of dung).

.

Ruth McNitt

The part you miss is the assumption that these mere 200 people involved can not sustain themselves by moving to a more prosperous area of Japan, or simply start up a business centered on the beauty of Taiji, such as a dive shop, snorkel gear, cameras, swimsuits, day trips, bicycle rentals, snowcone shop, so many things they could do instead of murdering fellow beings. Most Japanese don’t even eat dolphins, so why are they being killed for meat and hidden/added into other things or re-labeled as other fish, whale or tuna? Then there are the “sea pens” where formerly wild dolphins are languishing, dying, starving, being drugged to try to save them long enough to sell and transport them away. “Trainers” feed them frozen dead fish laced with drugs. Even those fish are withheld while the slaves are being trained to have to perform stupid tricks in order to get their survival food. Completely cruel. There are so many things wrong with this “dolphin industry” the swell of antipathy and repulsion is not even enough to cover how awful it is.

Sajidha

I read this article objectively and calmly and it has re inforced my position that this dolphin hunt is inhumane and cruel. From the start to the finish, from the manner in which the dolphins are driven into the cove to the selling of dolphins to marine parks, and of which this article make absolutely no mention. “Modest incomes!!” is a laugh indeed. Selling dolphins to marine parks is what is sustaining this cruel hunt under the guise of tradition and what the fishermen and middle men make out of selling captive dolphins is hardly what one could call “modest!!” And one more thing. There is a difference between eating a domesticated animal e.g chicken and a wild animal e.g dolphin, chimpanzee, elephants, rhino.

Ken5745

if there is any karmic truth that brings upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, the killing of the intelligent dolphins may have an ill effect.

Therefore, I wish to advise the people of Taiji not to eat the dolphin meats because they are probably contaminated with cesium137 and strontium90 from the daily discharge of about 300 tons of radioactive water from Fukushima. This will cause cancer in the years ahead.

These dolphins are large mammals and they can swim to many locations on the seas off the Eastern and Western coasts.

For more news on the Fukushima disaster go to the archives :

See more at rense(dot)com/Datapages/japanquakedat.htm

Gavin in Morioka

I disagree. Eating dolphin is not a human’s vital interest. We can certainly eat many other things. Staying alive, however, is an animal’s vital interest. We should not satisfy our non-vital interests through the suppression of another creature’s vital image. Humans can adapt and retrain. The unemployed of the town have welfare to rely on as well; they have a safety net.

Gavin in Morioka

I disagree. Eating dolphin is not a human’s vital interest. We can certainly eat many other things. Staying alive, however, is an animal’s vital interest. We should not satisfy our non-vital interests through the suppression of another creature’s vital image. Humans can adapt and retrain. The unemployed of the town have welfare to rely on as well; they have a safety net.

Gavin in Morioka

I disagree. Eating dolphin is not a human’s vital interest. We can certainly eat many other things. Staying alive, however, is an animal’s vital interest. We should not satisfy our non-vital interests through the suppression of another creature’s vital image. Humans can adapt and retrain. The unemployed of the town have welfare to rely on as well; they have a safety net.

Mike O’Brien

Gavin, that is the way nature works and has worked since the beginning. Living things compete with other living thing for food, resources, living space, mates, etc. And humans are no different than other living things in this regard.

I assume from your comment you are a vegetarian (or a hypocrite). Well if all humans gave up meat where would all those plants (which are also living things which just like dolphins have a vital interest in not being eaten) come from? Grown on farms I guess, but that means clearing land to grow the crops. that destroys the homes of lots of animals, homes those animals need to pursue their vital interest of living. It also destroys those animals food supply, another thing they need to pursue their vital interest.

So it seems that unless all humans just commit suicide, the mere existence of even vegetarian humans will infringe on the vital interests of other living things.

And unemployment, you are joking right? You realize the money to support the unemployed has to come from somewhere, right? And if there are more unemployed than that money can support then the whole system collapses, right? So we add the dolphin fishermen to the unemployed, and because you aren’t a hypocrite we add everyone involved in raising, slaughtering, transporting and selling any meat or fish product. Do you really think the ‘safety net’ can sustain that?

Mike O’Brien

“You are making a claim basically to tradition.”

No I am not. I am making a claim to nature and how nature works. But you can’t answer to that so you will build a strawman to attack instead.

Humans have to eat to survive, you know that vital interest you were on about? And clearly no matter what humans eat, it involves infringing on the vital interests of other living beings.

“I believe it’s a lesser problem to infringe on plant lives than on living species for sustenance.”

Well that is thrilling. But as I clearly pointed out, growing that food infringes on the vital interests of non-plant living beings.

” Meat production requires a greater amount of water, land, and energy than vegetation production.”

No it doesn’t. Catching fish doesn’t require any water, land or energy.

“I’m glad they are protected; I’d like to protect all species.”

So if your dog has ringworm you shouldn’t treat it, right? Or if your child has a tapeworm, just let it live.

“So, to reiterate, I do not buy your ‘that’s the way it is’ argument.”

Well you have a right to live with your head in the sand, build strawmen and avoid reality.

Gavin in Morioka

Dear Mike, before we go further, let’s remember that we are cooperating together to reach the truth. Your tone, to be honest, puts me off. Could you tone it down a bit? I’m interested in what you have to say and I’m also someone who thinks as carefully as you do.

I’m a bit busy now but I’ve thought about some things you said. You talked about the way things have always been. Look, it isn’t true. Humans have always adapted to changing conditions in order to survive. First, we became hunters and gatherers. Next, some needed to become herders. About 10,000 years ago, we needed to develop agriculture. So, it’s not ridiculous to suggest that we may need to develop a vegetarian lifestyle to survive (The United Nations is suggesting it). I think this refutes your claim that meet eating is okay because it’s always been done.

About destroying land to grow more vegetables? After some thinking, I realized we don’t need to destroy extra land. It’s already been done. We use a lot of land to grow food for beef production. We can use that land to feed people. The biggest agricultural crop? It’s sugar. The amount of land used for sugar production will astound you (the size of Italy). See The Guardian Website.

I’m sorry but I’m preoccupied with other stuff for the next few days. I’ll read over your important points and will reply. Thanks again for the chance to dialogue.

Mike O’Brien

Well maybe if you would stop intentionally misstating what I said my tone would improve.

“You talked about the way things have always been. Look, it isn’t true.”

Yes it is true. Living things survive by competing with other living things for food, living space, mates, etc.

“I think this refutes your claim that meet eating is okay because it’s always been done.”

I never made that claim, so your strawman refutes nothing.

“It’s already been done.”

Oh, so benefiting from destroying habitat is OK as long as someone else did the destroying. yeah that is morally defensible. Why not return that habitat to the creatures, or their descendants, that use to live there?

“The biggest agricultural crop? It’s sugar. The amount of land used for sugar production will astound you (the size of Italy).”

Since you seem to be using area for your definition of biggest, your claim is wrong. Wheat, rice and maize each individually use many times more land than sugar cane does. Rice is ~6.2 times the area of sugar cane, or a little bigger than Iran. Maize is ~6.8 times the area of sugar cane, or a little bigger than Libya. And wheat is ~8.3 times the area of sugar cane, or a little smaller than Greenland.

Debs

The manner of killing the dolphins is, as has been now documented, unquestionably inhumane. The fact that dolphins are being increasingly verified by marine scientists as extraordinarily intelligent complex and self-aware beings -‘non-human persons’ – only emphasises the inhumaneness of the drive hunts. The drive-hunters do not have exclusive planetary rights to go on committing these acts against humanity, anymore than any other individual or group of people anywhere. We all live in an uncertain world, where progress and change can sometimes force us to adapt and leave us searching for new ways and means of living. An understanding that we share this planet with all manner of wondrous and beautiful creatures is just one of the issues we must accept, something that Buddhism can teach all of us. There is no place for dolphin drive hunts in the twenty-first century. It is that simple.

Mike O’Brien

“It is that simple.”

No, actually it isn’t. Your opinion is based on your idea that your beliefs are the only correct ones and that everyone should believe like you do. Obviously many people don’t agree with you, which shoots down your claim of simplicity.

Kakapon

According to your logic, “intelligent creatures shouldn’t be killed”, it is no problem to kill “Stupid” animals we humans defined so, right? That is why dogs are killed and eaten in some Asian countries because they are stupid. That is why kangaroos are killed and eaten in Australia because they are stupid. That is why seals are killed and eaten in Canada because they are stupid. Is that all right?

Kakapon

I can’t see any problems on the dolphin
hunting in Japan.
None of dolphins hunted in Japan
is facing to extinction. There is no Japan’s law or international law
banning dolphin hunting. So what is the problem? Canadians do seal hunting. Australians
do Kangaroo hunting. Chinese, Koreans and Vietnamese eat dogs. French eat
rabbits. People eat those animals even though they have something else to eat. This
is just difference of the dietary habit. Dear people who are criticizing Japan’s
dolphin hunting, what do you think IF Hindu people said “Cows are divine
creatures. Don’t eat them” to the people in your country? What do you think IF
Muslim people said “don’t eat pork. Pigs are the unclean animals.” to the
people in your country? You probably think that is not their business, right?
This is exactly what you guys are doing. Before criticizing other people, please
learn how to respect others.

ken

It seems to me that your main reason for defending this barbaric practice is nationalism – a Japanese trait that has backfired on Japan in the past.

Kakapon

I am sorry but my statement has nothing to do with nationalism. I just mentioned facts. According to those facts, I don’t see any problems on dolphin hunting. That’s it. But I think you should stop applying your own standard to people living in different countries. Because you don’t do does not mean “barbaric” or “backfired” in other countries. Your comment makes you disgraceful…

ken

Only disgraceful according to your culture, most people consider the unabashed cruelty displayed by the Japanese to be disgraceful – You should stop applying your standards to people from different countries.

Kakapon

Did I apply my standard? Please mention when and to what/who.

ken

“your comment makes you disgraceful” – That is according to your standards?

ken

“your comment makes you disgraceful” – That is according to your standards?
More important though, is the way you always say “it’s not illegal so it’s OK” – Do you not understand that while something can be legal, it can also be immoral, barbaric and abhorrent?
Do you not understand how easily Japan could improve it’s international image by simply showing a little compassion?

ken

“your comment makes you disgraceful” – That is according to your standards?
More important though, is the way you always say “it’s not illegal so it’s OK” – Do you not understand that while something can be legal, it can also be immoral, barbaric and abhorrent?
Do you not understand how easily Japan could improve it’s international image by simply showing a little compassion?

ken

“your comment makes you disgraceful” – That is according to your standards?
More important though, is the way you always say “it’s not illegal so it’s OK” – Do you not understand that while something can be legal, it can also be immoral, barbaric and abhorrent?
Do you not understand how easily Japan could improve it’s international image by simply showing a little compassion?

ken

“your comment makes you disgraceful” – That is according to your standards?
More important though, is the way you always say “it’s not illegal so it’s OK” – Do you not understand that while something can be legal, it can also be immoral, barbaric and abhorrent?
Do you not understand how easily Japan could improve it’s international image by simply showing a little compassion?

ken

“your comment makes you disgraceful” – That is according to your standards?
More important though, is the way you always say “it’s not illegal so it’s OK” – Do you not understand that while something can be legal, it can also be immoral, barbaric and abhorrent?
Do you not understand how easily Japan could improve it’s international image by simply showing a little compassion?

Kakapon

Do you not understand that people in different countries always don’t think the way you think? You can think it is immoral, barbaric or whatever, but it does not mean that everyone else has same thought as you do. For example, Australians do kangaroo hunting in Australia. Canadians do seal hunting in Canada. Hindu people think cows are sacred animals. If non-Australian people said that don’t hunt kangaroos to Australians because it is immoral or barbaric? If Hindu people said that don’t eat cows to people in beef-consuming countries? Now can you see my point? Hope you understand that different people have different standards.

ken

We have all heard those tired old arguments before, but if Japan has any wish to be well regarded by the rest of the world, they need to swallow some pride and start behaving in a civilized manner.
The rest of the world see Japanese as behaving like spoilt children (right or wrong, that is the perception).
Perhaps the reason Japan behaves like this is that they only came out of isolation fifty years ago and haven’t yet learned to be a proper “world citizen”.
Anyway, the solution is in the hands of the Japanese – They can continue to be the butt of the world’s jokes and become increasingly isolated and criticised, or they can start to behave with the maturity expected from the world’s third largest economy and earn some respect.
I have travelled the world, and in every country that I’ve visited, young Japanese travellers are always confronted with “Oh, You guys are the ones that keep killing the whales and dolphins”, and these poor young Japanese invariably have to explain that most Japanese don’t eat whale and dolphin, and these hunts only represent a tiny minority of Japanese.
Don’t you think that it’s sad that a minority of stubborn people can ruin the international image of an entire country?

Let’s see: There’s no “tradition” in the Taiji dolphin killings, it is merely to supplement a few hundred fisherman’s incomes after whaling was almost entirely banned a few decades ago (and we’ll close THAT loophole one of these days…). So that “tradition” thing is just a lie. And next we are told the “fishermen” (aka slaughterhouse workers) will not be able to “sustain” themselves if they cannot hack dolphins to death for the extra income it provides over what they can make from fishing for fish. But these “fishermen” are human beings, and thus, perfectly capable of learning a new skill. So that’s a lie, too. If fishing can only sustain 1/3 of them, then the other 2/3rds should find other work. If there is no other work in Taiji, then Taiji has too many residents for the number of jobs it can sustain, that’s all. That’s no reason to hack intelligent creatures to death! And why is “intelligent creatures” in quotes anyway in the article? Because the author doubts it? Perhaps the author should study some scientific research into dolphins, and maybe get to know one before doubting their intelligence! Lastly, I am disgusted that the author assumes humans will always eat dolphins, while failing to distinguish between the moral consequences of eating plants versus, say, animals which have grown to maturity on a free-range farm, versus animals who suffered all their lives in a factor farm, versus butchering our closest relatives in the animal kingdom just because someone couldn’t find honest work elsewhere — or wouldn’t even try. PM Abe is excellent at excusing crimes — he does this over Fukushima, and he does this over the Taiji dolphin killings.

Kakapon

According to your logic, “intelligent creatures shouldn’t be killed”, it is no problem to kill “Stupid” animals we humans defined so, right? That is why dogs are killed and eaten in some Asian countries because they are stupid. That is why kangaroos are killed and eaten in Australia because they are stupid. That is why seals are killed and eaten in Canada because they are stupid. Is that all right?

My response was a logical continuation of your line of reasoning, however, your response was already ad absurdum and this latest one is also ad hominem. It simply reiterates that I am wrong and so are all others opposed to dolphin killing. My response to you was appropriately sarcastic or at the very least, brought it’s “logic” to it’s “logical” conclusion.

It seems that we can at least agree that eating people is wrong.

Individual gorillas have been taught to respond and use over 200 words, including emotions, future/past tense, demands, forgiveness, etc.. Dolphins aren’t far behind the great apes and might even be smarter, or at least, more altruistic. Are there any species — besides humans — you have any respect for, ie, wouldn’t eat because they’re too cute (puppies), too much like us (pigs), against your religion (pigs again, typically)? Do you think you need bear bile to “perform”? Should bears be forced to perform? FYI I eat very few animals, tending towards fish and fowl, but have been amazed by the intelligence exhibited by, say, crows — although, it is for other reasons that I have no intention of eating crow.

Kakapon

Thank you for coming back to discussion! Unfortunately, I am not really sure what you really want to say from your reply. I am sorry for my poor interpretation, but are you still mentioning that the intelligence matters on which animals should be eaten or not? If I am wrong, could you clarify little bit more? By the way, there are many animals I don’t eat. I don’t eat kakapos, tigars, rhinos, manatees, and all other endangered animals because they are endangered. I don’t eat rats, crows, worms, snakes, dolphins,etc because they are not in my dietary habit, not because of their “appearance” or “intelligence” defined by humans. Though I still respect people eating those abundant animals as the difference.

Kakapon

Thank you for coming back to discussion! Unfortunately, I am not really sure what you really want to say from your reply. I am sorry for my poor interpretation, but are you still mentioning that the intelligence matters on which animals should be eaten or not? If I am wrong, could you clarify little bit more? By the way, there are many animals I don’t eat. I don’t eat kakapos, tigars, rhinos, manatees, and all other endangered animals because they are endangered. I don’t eat rats, crows, worms, snakes, dolphins,etc because they are not in my dietary habit, not because of their “appearance” or “intelligence” defined by humans. Though I still respect people eating those abundant animals as the difference.

Kakapon

Thank you for coming back to discussion! Unfortunately, I am not really sure what you really want to say from your reply. I am sorry for my poor interpretation, but are you still mentioning that the intelligence matters on which animals should be eaten or not? If I am wrong, could you clarify little bit more? By the way, there are many animals I don’t eat. I don’t eat kakapos, tigars, rhinos, manatees, and all other endangered animals because they are endangered. I don’t eat rats, crows, worms, snakes, dolphins,etc because they are not in my dietary habit, not because of their “appearance” or “intelligence” defined by humans. Though I still respect people eating those abundant animals as the difference.

Kakapon

Thank you for coming back to discussion! Unfortunately, I am not really sure what you really want to say from your reply. I am sorry for my poor interpretation, but are you still mentioning that the intelligence matters on which animals should be eaten or not? If I am wrong, could you clarify little bit more? By the way, there are many animals I don’t eat. I don’t eat kakapos, tigars, rhinos, manatees, and all other endangered animals because they are endangered. I don’t eat rats, crows, worms, snakes, dolphins,etc because they are not in my dietary habit, not because of their “appearance” or “intelligence” defined by humans. Though I still respect people eating those abundant animals as the difference.

Kakapon

Thank you for coming back to discussion! Unfortunately, I am not really sure what you really want to say from your reply. I am sorry for my poor interpretation, but are you still mentioning that the intelligence matters on which animals should be eaten or not? If I am wrong, could you clarify little bit more? By the way, there are many animals I don’t eat. I don’t eat kakapos, tigars, rhinos, manatees, and all other endangered animals because they are endangered. I don’t eat rats, crows, worms, snakes, dolphins,etc because they are not in my dietary habit, not because of their “appearance” or “intelligence” defined by humans. Though I still respect people eating those abundant animals as the difference.

Bere Sevilla

The hole notion of being a HUMAN implies the protection of all the other species that accompany us in the world. If we are, as we always imply, THE MOST INTELLIGENT CREATURES ON EARTH (¿?), how is it possible that we sustain our lives in the same way “LESS INTELLIGENT CREATURES” do? We eat others meat, we dress other’s skin and we destroy other’s ecosystem. If we truly are smart, how come we act exactly as the “less privileged”? Hopefully, this is changing and smart people are choosing to chose right, and right is VEGAN LIFE.

Mike O’Brien

I didn’t realize you were responsible for defining things for everyone else. Who elected you leader?

Kakapon

I can’t believe that there are still so many people claiming that Japan should stop dolphin hunting because that is not a tradition. Whether it is tradition or not, it can’t be the reason to stop dolphin hunting because it is not illegal and dolphins hunted are not endangered. The dolphin hunting is as same as the seal hunting in Canada and kangaroo hunting in Australia. And, do not kill the dolphins because they are beautiful and intelligent? This is most irrational opinion I have seen as the reason to stop dolphin hunting. According to this logic, it is no problem to kill “Ugly” and “Stupid” animals we humans defined so, right? That is why dogs are killed and eaten in some Asian countries because they are ugly and stupid. That is why kangaroos are killed and eaten in Australia because they are ugly and stupid. That is why seals are killed and eaten in Canada because they are ugly and stupid. Is that all right? Intelligence and appearance defined by human standard do not mean anything on which animals are ok to eat or not. It
is just egoism and ignorance.

Diego Rodríguez Peregrin

In Catalonia, north east of Spain, bullfight is banned since 2012. Do Japanese people think that was achieved without enormous sacrifice? Bullfighting is culturally and economically very important to Spaniards, but that was not enough to make right what was wrong. The same was done before in Britain banning fox hunting, and we hope all sorts of cruelty on animals will be soon outlaw in civilized countries. It’s a pity Japan’s immense cultural heritage can be overshadowed by that tiny community that just think their own short term needs weights more than the whole country interests.

Kakapon

I understand that bullfight is banned in Spain and fox hunting is banned in British. But, I don’t understand why dolphin hunting in Japan needs to be judged as the animal cruelty by other people who live in different countries, have different life styles and dietary habits. Even though bullfight was culturally and economically very important to Spaniards, that is not enough reason to keep bullfight? Are you applying same standard in Spain to what people in Taiji are doing? I think that is your ego. People living in different environment do have different life styles and dietary habits. I don’t think it is right thing to judge people who are doing different thing by applying your standard , as long as what they do is not banned by both internal and external regulations and animals hunted by them are not endangered. What do you think?

Brock

Time for Canada to stop the seal hunt also…it is sickening and I have written too many politicians in my own country to show how it is not good business and hurts our image abroad, all to deaf ears…the Canadian media does not show the issue..largest mammal hunt in the world…400,000 each and every year…all for the good of about 5000 people…ashamed to be a Canadian on this topic…very similar to the dolfin kill in Japan….

ken

Just because it’s legal doesn’t make it right, likewise for tradition.
Some cultures had traditions of slavery, cannibalism and infanticide but when they became civilised they left these practices behind – Time for Japan to become civilised.

Jon Champs

There are always alternatives, they chose Dolphins when they could not kill whales so let them choose something else when they are told they cannot kill dolphins. This blindness the Japanese and other like Norway and Iceland have to the demonstrable sentience of these creatures is mind numbing. It has little to do with survival and everything to do with profit. Sometimes that is morally reprehensible and it’s time they saw that and the astonishing beauty and right to life of these intelligent creatures.

Lereau

It always pay to target Japan, ‘The bad guys’, and almost nobody cares about what scandinavian countries (typical ‘good guys’) are doing which is strangely similar (especially in the Faroe islands). Most ‘Sea shepherds’ actions (and movies) concern Japan, the ‘politically correct’ target.

flyfin

With 6,000 TONS of whale meat in storage – that the Japanese can’t sell, or even give away – because no one wants it! What on earth would possess anyone to go out looking for more? The economics supporting the dolphin hunt are faulty and damning to the Japanese government. Less that 1% of the people will consume whale meant, let alone dolphin meat, and the young in Japan are screaming to stop this practice. (Dolphins are whales-cetaceans – and their meat is mis-labeled the more expensive “whale meat” when sold.) 30 million yen was taken from the nuclear disaster at Fukishima recovery funds to support the whaling industry – what sense does that make? When will the Japanese people stand up to the government and say, “let’s do something better with pubic funding” than slaughter dolphins and whales while we only pile up tons of unsalable meat.

flyfin

Why on earth would anyone with 6000 TONS of whale/dolphin meat in FROZEN STORAGE because it can’t be sold and is unwanted – go out and take more whales and dolphins? Why did the Japanese govt. take 30 million yen to support this unpopular industry from funds that were intended for Fukishima rebuilding and its victims? Why do people insist on their violence and unspeakable cruelty – and against dolphins is as bad as against humans!?

flyfin

Far less than 1% of Japanese will buy or consume whale/dolphin meat. That’s why there is 6000 + tons of whale meat frozen, they can’t even give it away. The youth are outraged about whaling, and the vast majority of the population agree : killing whales and dolphins is unnecessary and poor economic policy, not to mention heartlessly cruel.

flyfin

If dolphin killing began in 1969 – WHO CAN CALL THAT TRADITION? It’s an obscene result of the greedy exploitative act of imprisoning these supremely intellectual beings in captivity – that’s why. Taiji is the source. Avoid all marine mammal theme parks, these should all be shut down. The crimes against the environment are endless and show the unspeakable and inexhaustible capacity of humans to inflict torture and pain on non-human species. Dolphin parks enrich their godless owners, and those owners don’t care how many dolphins die, as long as they get cash in their pockets.

Yet Japan is considered the evil empire, and Norway gets ignored as well as Iceland.

The reason is obvious. Whaling is ok as long as it is White Northern Europeans do it.

It’s only wrong when Japanese do it. If this were not true, it would be Japan’s whaling activities that were treated as an afterthought instead of Norway.

Australia and New Zealand should be even angrier that a Norway a nation with just over 5,000,000 people has a quota almost 1.5x as large Japan a nation with 126,000,000 people, but for the most part they are silent.

The justification the lie that some want to believe is it’s due to to Japan and Australia and NZ all being in the Pacific.

That is utterly ludicrous. We are all on the same planet, and if whaling is your great concern the fact that whales are dying in the Atlantic is no less a concern than it is they are dying in the Pacific.

Just what an absolute outrage it is that Western environmentalists only focus on Japan is made clear when you break it down per capita.

For Norway and Iceland the quota means 1 whale for approx every 4000 citizens.

Obviously if there is a problem regarding Whaling the problem is located in Northern Europe.

The racists though can only see problems when they can blame people who are not from Europe.

It’s hight time Japan treat these racist environmentalists with the same contempt that Russia treated the Greenpeace activists, because they aren’t motivated by what’s right or wrong, but by a desire to preserve White privilege when it comes to whaling.

mack man

JohnnyMorales – There are several very important facts that you have omitted to mention: Japan hunts in international waters, against the wishes of every other country who share an interest in Antarctic waters. However even worse than that, Japan hunt whales in the Antarctic whale sanctuary. In addition, Japan’s actions have been found to be illegal with the International court of Justice in April 2013. Whaling undertaken in Norway and Iceland is in their own territorial waters – You are comparing apples with oranges. However this does not mean that people who care for the environment, do not take action against Iceland or Norway, in regards to hunting Cetaceans. As you should understand protesters have nothing against Japanese people, and frankly it is pathetic, when you suggest that anti whaling protests are race motivated. In Sea Shepherd and Greenpeace, there are many nationalities -not just European- in their respective organization (including Japanese).

As for not protesting against Norway, or Iceland I am not sure where you get that notion from? The Sea Shepherd attempted scuttle a whaler named Nybræna in the mid-nineties, and in Iceland the most notable protest, was when the Sea Shepherd sunk 4 whaling vessels in Reykjavík harbor. Of course there have been many other protests against Canada, Russia, Costa Rica, Makah Indians, and Denmark. Currently Sea Shepherd has 150 volunteers in the Faroe Islands, trying to stop (successfully so far) the annual whale slaughter.

You must understand the Japan take more than their fair share of the world’s ocean resources, they represent only 2% of the world’s population, yet they take a greedy 10% of the world fishery intake. Hence this is why they get the most attention from anti whaling protesters- nothing to do with race.

You canNOT tell the truth without context, and to suggest Japan should cut back on its use of world resources without mentioning how much Europeans and Americans use is a classic example of emboldened racism as a result of being blinded by your own sense of self-righteousness.

When it comes to per capita use of resources, the Japanes are the MOST FRUGAL of ALL developed nations.

Yet you have the gall to exert a fact of how much they use in total as if that fact can stand on its own in order to condemn them for killing whales.

Oh and isn’t this about killing whales?

Since when does killing whales matter less in terms of the impact on whale populations simply by killing them in your own territorial waters? That is absurd.

If it is only about territorial waters, then why the uproar about the dolphin slaughter in Japanese waters directly OFFSHORE?

It really does NOT matter if they are fishing in their own waters or internationally, as Japan is following the treaty language.

You split hairs so that you can condemn Japan and split them even finer so you can excuse whales killed by Western nations.

The fact that you talk about Japan’s percentage of the population in order to indict them while saying absolutely nothing regarding Norwegian and Icelanders killing a similar # of whales while having 1/25th of Japan’s population shows the racist underpinnings of your beliefs.

You simply are BLIND to the excess in the West when it comes to killing whales. You can find excuses.

Only when the Japanese do it is it an outrage.

As for the efforts to stop the Norwegians and Icelanders it is a paltry effort compared to the Japanese.

Finally considering that the Whale populations of the Antarctic are far more plentiful than those of the Northern seas thanks to the near wholesale decimation of the Northern Whale species courtesy of Europeans, it makes sense that Japan would hunt there.

Ah but making sense when it comes to wildlife preservation has never been the strong suite of environmentalists whose holier than though, idiotic policies have been the death of far more wild species than they have ever saved. If you don’t get that, then maybe you should spend a bit more time paying attention to the wholesale devastation of wildlife species in the West vs a vs the entire world.

Something you no doubt think is a given and too late, but it’s not. You and your ilk are just too busy looking for non-White people who are doing the killing.

mack man

Johnny Moranes I had to laugh out loud at your reply. Firstly I never said that “Europeans and Americans should not cut back on resources” as you put it. There are other countries, guilty of environmental crimes, as well as Japan, Europeans are included. It is just that Japan commits that most heinous crime, in regards to Whale hunting by killing whales in a whale sanctuary. How many countries can you name that carry out this action? Yes that’s right, only one – JAPAN! How many countries can you name that hunt in international waters? – JAPAN. How many countries can you name arrogantly ignore international law and hunt whales in the name of ‘Research’ that’s right. Moranes- JAPAN!

Secondly it’s not about hunting in international versus territorial waters. Where ever hunting takes place is a heinous crime regardless. So Moranes Japan stands out as the A***hole of the western World. It’s a shame because it is a country that has so much to offer. I and other people who care have nothing against Japanese people, only the Japanese government and whaling industry. You conviently ignore protesting in other nations, and case in point the campaign in the Faroe islands that is currently taking place. Maybe Faroe island whale hunters are not “European” enough for you to accept this. There are several other historic campaigns in other countries where “Caucasians” live. It is just laughable to say that protesting is only carried out against the Asian race of Japanese Origin.

You are pretty hilarious if you think you’re hide behind the claim that you never said this or that as if every discussion only consists of what is literally written or said.

Rhetorically speaking, the IMPLICATION of what you said was made clear by what you DID NOT SAY.

Talking about Japan as being a resource hog and using it as a justification for it to cut back WITHOUT mentioning it is the most frugal by far of all the developed nations, please.

Save your bullsh*t for someone who believes you really care.

All you really care about is coming down hard on Japan to make yourself feel good about doing something to help this planet while you continue to drink your $10 lattes knowing full damn well that the biggest resource hog in the world are the Americans like us.

Heaven forbid you do something out our wholesale ravaging of the world’s resources so we can have I Phones galore.

No you feel far better deflecting any such attention on your wholesale profligate use of the world’s resources to the horrors of Japanese Whaling.

It’s so horrific in part, because Japan violates laws you say regarding whales were written in fire by the hand of God and handed to us below.

You can shove your oh so sacred sounding argument about legal and illegal.

First off the WHALES DO NOT CARE!

The WHALE species FACING EXTINCTION EXIST IN THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE, NOT ANTARCTICA.

To speak of it as some sort of holier than thou creation that whaling somehow violates is supercilious spirituality characteristic of Liberals who think only they know what’s best for the world.

In your effort to condemn Japan for what it does you’ve built an argument on lies.

There is nothing to be argued.

Oh as if I really care what you think about me or my opinions.

Really if you were concerned about extinctions, you and greenfleece would be down in Tasmania trying to stop the eminent extinction of the Tasmanian Devil thanks to environmentalists adopting practices based on the notion that we should leave nature alone even if it means a 100% deadly disease kills every single last one of them.

mack man

Morones -“Oh as if I really care what you think about me or my opinions” mmmmm… Lol- you would not be writing so much drivel if you did!

Oh and the definition of drivel is calling not adhering to VOLUNTARY guidelines as ignoring international law.

The IWC is a voluntary organization that created a Voluntary sanctuary.

I know you didn’t know that.

So Japan is violating no laws or territories.

Japan however is refusing to honor your supercilious spirituality based on nothing more than you think you know what is the best for all, which always boils down to you telling other people what they can or cannot do, while you do nothing at all.

mack man

*Yawn* – Now I understand why you call yourself JohnnyMorons.

examplesample

This article was a let down. I was hoping to see some real defense from the perspective of the Japanese people. Instead, all I got was a guy who does not know what the word “inhumane” means and a short lecture on how Japanese people love nature and buddha.

in·hu·mane
ˌin(h)yo͞oˈmān/
adjective
without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel.

No one is saying they can’t kill dolphins, we are saying they can’t kill them by poking them while laughing, driving them into rocks, drowning them, and throwing their defenseless babies out in the wild ocean to die (or selling them to Sea World). These Japanese males are inhumanely killing these dolphins. They are fueled by greed and bloodlust. They take pleasure in torturing living beings for money. They do not deserve defense, but I was eager to try and see from both sides. It appears that even their fellow Japanese cannot defend them! Wow.

Helena Frangogiannis

Their modest income..???? How much money do they get for the slaves they capture? And in any case, since when is modest income an excuse to be a sadist? Have seen what PITHING is about? As for Traditional lifestyles, customs etc.. Marine Them Parks didn’t exist a few years ago..nor did power boats… This is not about tradition. This is about GREED and CRUELTY!

pat mcara

Cop out!!!!!Neanderthal thinking!!

Bruce H. Crocker

By all means, let us reason calmly and sensibly!! Just two points to make;
1) You keep referring to dolphin ‘FISHING” Why do you use that term? Surely you must be aware that they are mammals, just as we are. Air breathing vertebrates!! There are “dolphinfish’ but these are NOT!! Please use the correct term…..dolphin hunting!! Unless of course, you fish for deer and you cat goes fishing for mice and rats, etc.
2) You talk only about the killing of dolphin and that they use it as part of their requirements for sustenance and a secure lifestyle. First of all, the killing is but a small part of the Taiji “drive hunt” and if it were not for what has become the MAIN purpose, the drive hunt, I venture to say would have already been a thing of the past!! That main purpose is the abduction of baby dolphins, violently, very,very violently, from their mothers and family, in order that they can sell those babies to persons who are nothing more than slavers or slave masters, dolphin slavers and dolphin slave masters as opposed to the human slavers and slave masters of the “negroes” of yesteryear!! Thence to be confined to a pitiful life in some concrete or steel tank, a life that is so far removed from that of their natural world as to defy comparison!!
And, you know what……to countenance such an occupation as that…..I don’t care whether that is their only means and that giving it up might mean some problems….tough s*&t!! There are a good number of occupations that some would engage in (and do, until arrested) that society does not allow….so why now, should the world stand by and not criticise, not attempt to alter the behaviour of a member country. And remember…those dolphins are not Japan’s property…if they are the property of anyone (and I find that a repugnant consideration due to my personal belief that they should be accorded Non-Human Person status) they are the property of the World, for they are just passers-by on a migratory path that unfortunately for them renders them prey to the dolphin killers/kidnappers! As such they are a part of the world ocean ecology and thus, I, you and every person on this planet has a right to have a say as to how Japan treats this ocean dweller (neighbour to me, perhaps food stock to you)!

Bruce H. Crocker

You know what Army? The army of world opinion! I know that they are very resistant to criticism and change! So were the smokers in Canada! Thirty years ago, if you were a part of a…say group of 20 people, at least 16 of that group would have been smokers! People smoked at their work desks, at parties, in the hospital rooms even!! The casinos and bingo halls were filled with blue/gray haze from the second hand smoke of the occupants. Today, in that same group of 20, you might find 2 or 3 smokers, smoking is no longer not allowed…it is as ticketable offence, as is smoking anywhere except designated public areas…and of course, your own home and even there you cannot expose your children to your second hand smoke without the possibility of a visit from the local Family & Children Services people if there is a possibility that their health is being endangered. And, believe you me, the smokers did resist….cursing and swearing, virtually dragged in to compliance some of them. Much the same with driving under the influence…I can remember when it was almost a rite of passage for a young male to get ‘plastered” and be able to brag the next day that he drove himself home!! Now?! If he managed to get behind the wheel and drive home without being arrested, he would be scorned by most, if not all, of his peers!!
So, don’t say that opinions don’t count or that they will have the opposite effect to that which is being sought!

CARE AND LOVE!!!!??? Where, pray tell, did you see that!! Certainly not in Taiji!! There is ample footage to refute any claim that they care and love the dolphin!!!

And have a good read of Carla French’s comments…she is point on with her description of the cull and the treatment afforded their victims!!

wilson blauheuer

First of all there is no such thing as ‘dolphin fishing’ Dolphins are mammals and killing them in the wild is called hunting because that is the proper name of the actions being executed upon them.
Now..Japanese are typical vicious Asians. In spite of all the racist leftist bullshit about introspective sympathetic peaceful asians, there is no race on earth other than Africans, which is as insensible to the suffering they inflict than Asians. In fact, they are, and always have been vicious murderous bloodthirsty killers, towards animals and humans. Don’telieve me, I’m a bigot- go read history of Asians in war and in their zoos, and every other place they exist.
Lastly- killing wild animals for sustainment is incompatible with the world in the modern age. there are far too many people to rely on harvesti the lives of wild animals as a form of sustenance, even as a supplementary measure. Do I hate Asians? Not really, but I certainly don’t like them and I don’t respect their accomplishments. I only write hatefully of them as a response to the things I have learned about their behavior. They should be compelled to cease their awful behaviors, is MY opinion.

Feed & Social

JDP Info

About JDP

The task and mission of the Japan Daily Press is to engage Asia and the World with a never-ceasing flow of news and editorials on various facets of Japan. We plan to keep our readers up-to-date on Japanese politics, economy, society, and culture with our daily news.